People v. Cook CA3

Filed 3/3/16 P. v. Cook CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C079476

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12F8790)

v.

ANDREW GRADY COOK,

Defendant and Appellant.

In this appeal from the denial of a Penal Code section 1170.18 (Proposition 47)1 petition for resentencing, appointed counsel for defendant Andrew Grady Cook has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks that we review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979)

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Around September 27, 2012, defendant received a stolen motorcycle. He pleaded no contest to felony receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)) and, in unrelated cases, entered no contest pleas to two counts of unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851), one count of possession of a device for smoking a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, former § 11364.1), two counts of vehicle theft with a prior (§ 666.5) with two on-bail enhancements (§ 12022.1), and escape (§ 4532, subd. (b)(1)). He was sentenced to a 10-year eight-month term in county prison.2 Defendant subsequently filed a Proposition 47 petition for reduction and resentencing on his receiving stolen property conviction. The People responded that defendant was not entitled to reduction because the value of the stolen property (a 1999 Ducati Super Sport motorcycle with 35,000 miles on it) exceeded $950. (See § 496, subd. (a).) The trial court denied the petition without hearing.3 Defendant appeals without a certificate of probable cause. DISCUSSION Whether the protections afforded by Wende and the United States Supreme Court decision in Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [18 L.Ed.2d 493] apply to an appeal from an order denying a petition brought pursuant to section 1170.18 remains an open question. Our Supreme Court has not spoken. The Anders/Wende procedures address