People v. Peasley CA5

Filed 1/22/21 P. v. Peasley CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F080139 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MCR064685) v.

DAVID S. PEASLEY, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Madera County. Ernest J. LiCalsi, Judge. Heather MacKay, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Meehan, J. and DeSantos, J.

Appellant David S. Peasley appeals from the trial court’s order summarily denying his petition for certificate of rehabilitation and for appointment of counsel (Pen. Code, §§ 4852.01 et seq.).1 Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and appellant filed a supplemental brief. We conclude after an independent review of the record and appellant’s supplemental brief that there are no arguable issues and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On September 23, 2019, appellant, in propria persona, filed a “Motion to Hear Petition, Certificate of Rehabilitation,” under section 4852.22. Appellant, an inmate in state prison, wrote he had been incarcerated since 2008; he indicated he had been convicted of a violation of section 261, subdivision (a)(2) (rape by force or fear) and was required to register pursuant to section 290 (sex offender registration). Appellant wrote that during his time of incarceration, he had had no rule violations, a “zero” security level score, had taken “a variety of rehabilitation” and education courses, and completed a faith-based 12-step program. He further stated that he had a “zero” percent chance of recidivism. Appellant attached a letter from his sister who wrote she was writing the letter “in support of clemency for” appellant. Appellant’s sister wrote she and appellant had a plan for appellant’s release in which he could live with and work for her and her husband. Appellant also filed a request for counsel to represent him on his petition for certificate of rehabilitation because he is an “indigent inmate.” On September 25, 2019, the trial court issued a written order denying appellant’s petition for certificate of rehabilitation and for appointment of counsel. The order indicated appellant was not eligible to file a petition for certificate of rehabilitation because he was still incarcerated in state prison and, as such, the required rehabilitation period had not yet begun to run. The order went on to say that section 4852.22, the