Filed 11/22/13 P. v. Matthews CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E058831
v. (Super.Ct.No. FWV011387)
EUGENE MATTHEWS, JR., OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Smith,
Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Patrick E. DuNah, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
INTRODUCTION
On July 27, 1998, a jury found defendant and appellant Eugene Matthews, Jr.,
guilty of possessing a completed check with intent to defraud. (Pen. Code, § 475a.)
Thereafter, the trial court found true two strike prior allegations. (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12,
subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i).)
On August 26, 1998, the trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of 25 years
to life in state prison. (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(2), 667, subd. (e)(2).)
On February 27, 2013, defendant filed a habeas corpus petition, in pro. per., for
resentencing under Proposition 36.1 On May 2, 2013, in denying defendant’s petition,
the court found that defendant’s strikes included forcible sexually violent offenses;
therefore, defendant was ineligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.126.
On May 24, 2013, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the denial of his
petition.
1 Defendant appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant
to Penal Code section 1170.126, added by Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act
of 2012.
2
ANALYSIS2
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to
represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of
the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to
undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he
has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we
have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
Acting P. J.
We concur:
RICHLI
J.
CODRINGTON
J.
2 This is an appeal from the denial of defendant’s petition for resentencing. The
underlying facts from the 1998 conviction, therefore, are neither included in the record
nor applicable to this appeal.
3