People v. Vasquez CA3

Filed 3/21/16 P. v. Vasquez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C079232

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 96F08036)

v.

MIGUEL EDWARDO VASQUEZ, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Miguel Edwardo Vasquez, Jr., appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18.1 Appointed counsel for defendant filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the order.

We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

On October 4, 1996, California Highway Patrol officers found two stolen Chevrolet pickup trucks at an automotive repair shop licensed to defendant.

Defendant pleaded no contest to receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)) and admitted a prior strike conviction (§§ 1192.7, 667.5, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). He was sentenced to four years in state prison and ordered to pay $11,825 in victim restitution for the vehicles.

Defendant subsequently filed a petition for resentencing, which was denied on the ground that the crime was ineligible for relief.

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 under section 1170.18, remains an open question. Our Supreme Court has not spoken. The Anders/Wende procedures address appointed counsel’s representation of an indigent criminal defendant in the first appeal as a matter of right and courts have been loath to expand their application to other proceedings or appeals. (See Pennsylvania v. Finley (1987) 481 U.S. 551 [95 L.Ed.2d 539]; Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529; In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952; People v. Dobson (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1422; People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304; People v. Thurman (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 36; Glen C. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 570.) Nonetheless, in the absence of Supreme Court authority to the contrary, we believe it prudent to adhere to Wende in the present case,