Filed 2/11/14 P. v. Valdez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, E059436
v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB041480)
RODNEY THOMAS VALDEZ, 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.
Arthur Martin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Rodney Thomas Valdez appeals after the trial court
denied his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.126, known as the
1
Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Prop. 36, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7,
2012)).1 Defendant filed a notice of appeal on August 15, 2013. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant was charged by second amended information with possession of a
controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, count 1) and receiving stolen
property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a), count 2). It was further alleged that defendant
suffered three prior strike convictions (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667,
subds. (b)-(i)), and that he had served three prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5,
subd. (b)).
A jury found defendant guilty of both counts, and a trial court found true the prior
strike allegations. The court imposed concurrent terms of 25 years to life on counts 1 and
2.
On April 10, 2013, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under section
1170.126. The court denied the petition on the ground that defendant’s prior convictions
for forcible rape (former § 261, subd. (2)) made him ineligible for resentencing under
section 1170.126, subdivision (e).
ANALYSIS
After the notice of appeal was filed, this court appointed counsel to represent
defendant. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25
1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise
noted.
2
Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d
493], setting forth a statement of the case, a brief statement of the facts, and identifying
one potential arguable issue: whether the court erred in concluding that defendant did not
qualify for resentencing under section 1170.126, subdivision (e)(3).
Defendant was offered an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which
he has not done. Under 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
HOLLENHORST
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
McKINSTER
J.
3