From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Raymond S.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT
Feb 2, 2016
B267738 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2016)

Opinion

B267738

02-02-2016

In re RAYMOND S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAYMOND S., Defendant and Appellant.

Steven A. Torres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VJ21009) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Philip K. Mautino, Judge. Affirmed. Steven A. Torres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________

Raymond S. appeals the denial of his petition for recall of sentence under Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. While a juvenile, Raymond was declared a ward of the court for the crime of robbery in 2000. He filed a petition for resentencing under Proposition 47 on May 12, 2015. His appellate attorney filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, on December 4, 2015, requesting we independently review the entire record on appeal for arguable issues. We have done so and are satisfied Raymond's attorney has fulfilled his duty, and no arguable issues exist. (Ibid.; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)

Proposition 47 reclassified certain drug and theft offenses, which had previously been felonies or "wobblers," as misdemeanors. (In re J.L. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1112.) Robbery is a serious and violent felony not subject to recall of sentence under Proposition 47. (§§ 211, 667.5, subd. (c)(9), 1170.18, 1192.7, subd. (c)(19); People v. Lynn (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 594, 599.)

DISPOSITION

The challenged order is affirmed.

BIGELOW, P. J. We concur:

RUBIN, J.

FLIER, J.


Summaries of

In re Raymond S.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT
Feb 2, 2016
B267738 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2016)
Case details for

In re Raymond S.

Case Details

Full title:In re RAYMOND S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT

Date published: Feb 2, 2016

Citations

B267738 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2016)