Filed 8/24/15 P. v. Harris 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, E063167
v. (Super.Ct.Nos. FSB1300881,
FSB1305086)
DWIGHT LEE HARRIS, SR.,
OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Brian S.
McCarville, Judge. Affirmed.
Susan S. Bauguess, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Dwight Lee Harris, Sr. is serving four years after pleading guilty to
vehicle theft, admitting a strike prior and having his probation revoked. He appeals from
1
the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18,1
also known as Proposition 47. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 8, 2013, in case number FSB1300881, defendant pled no contest to
unlawfully taking or driving a motor vehicle (Veh. Code, §10851, subd. (a)) and admitted
to having served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5). On May 13, 2013, as agreed, the trial
court placed him on probation for 36 months. On October 3, 2013, the trial court revoked
defendant’s probation.
On April 15, 2014, in case number FSB1305086, defendant pled guilty, as before,
to unlawfully taking or driving a motor vehicle and admitted to having a prior strike
conviction. On May 13, 2014, the court sentenced defendant as agreed to the midterm of
two years, doubled to four years for the strike prior. Also on May 13, 2014, defendant
admitted the probation violation and received a concurrent sentence of two years.
On December 29, 2014, defendant filed petitions for resentencing in both cases.
On January 30, 2015, the trial court denied both petitions, finding defendant not
eligible because he did not “satisfy the criteria in Penal Code section 1170.18.”
This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to
represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)
1 Section references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
2
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
conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he
has not done so.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error
that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The order denying defendant’s petition for resentencing under section 1170.18 is
affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST
J.
CODRINGTON
J.
3
People v. Harris CA4/2
Combined Opinion