People v. Altamarino CA2/3

Filed 7/22/16 P. v. Altamarino CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, B269051

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA426951) v.

DANIEL ALTAMIRANO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Drew E. Edwards, Judge. Affirmed. Stephen Borgo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. _____________________

On December 3, 2014, defendant and appellant Daniel Altamirano pled no contest to evading an officer in violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.2, subdivision (a).1 He was sentenced to a prison term of two years, plus an additional two years for prior prison term enhancements (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).2 On September 28, 2015, Altamirano petitioned to have his felony conviction designated as a misdemeanor under Proposition 47. On October 6, 2015, the trial court denied Altamirano’s petition because his conviction was not an offense covered by Proposition 47. We appointed counsel to represent Altamirano on appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441. We directed counsel to send the record on appeal and a copy of the opening brief to Altamirano, and notified defendant he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. No supplemental brief was filed. It is unclear whether Altamirano timely appealed from the order of denial. It is possible that Altamirano’s notice of appeal was untimely because it was not filed until December 8, 2015, more than the 60 days required for timely filing under California Rules of Court, rule 8.308(a). However, California recognizes a so-called “prison-delivery rule,” which holds that a prisoner’s pro se notice of appeal is deemed timely filed if delivered to the appropriate prison authorities within the 60-day filing period. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.25(b)(5); In re Jordan (1992) 4 Cal.4th 116, 130.) All we can tell from the record on appeal is that Altamirano himself appears to have