People v. Smith CA5

California Court of Appeal Jun 17, 2021 No. F080325Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's petition for resentencing under Proposition 47, finding that the defendant's misdemeanor conviction was not eligible for relief and that the record showed no error regarding his other listed cases.

Issues

Whether the defendant is entitled to relief under Proposition 47 for a misdemeanor conviction under Health and Safety Code section 11550, subdivision (a).
Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's petition for redesignation of convictions in other cases.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We therefore conclude Smith is not entitled to relief under Proposition 47 as a matter of law.”

“Insofar as the trial court also denied Smith relief in these cases, the limited record available does not show that the trial court erred.”

“We have undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, and we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Smith.”

Filed 6/17/21 P. v. Smith 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F080325 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F12905212) v.

CLEVELAND JAMES SMITH, JR., OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jane Cardoza, Judge. Kevin J. Lindsley, 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 Peña, Acting P.J., Smith, J. and Snauffer, J.

Appointed counsel for appellant Cleveland James Smith, Jr., asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Smith was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. To date, he has not done so. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Smith, we affirm. BACKGROUND On July 17, 2012, the Fresno County District Attorney’s Office filed a criminal complaint charging Smith with one count of felony corporal injury to a spouse (Pen. Code,1 § 273.5, subd. (a)). The complaint further alleged that Smith had suffered one prior strike conviction (§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and that he had served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). On August 10, 2012, following amendment of the complaint, Smith entered a plea of no contest to one misdemeanor count of being under the influence of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a)). Smith was sentenced to 90 days in county jail and placed on probation. In November 2014, California voters passed Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. (People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1089.) Proposition 47 “reduced certain drug and theft offenses to misdemeanors and created a process for resentencing persons serving felony sentences for those offenses (§ 1170.18).” (People v. Hall (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1258-1259.)

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

People v. Smith CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief