Filed 3/14/18 P. v. Hernandez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

v.

EDDIE CANTU HERNANDEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.


E069523

(Super.Ct.No. ICR20122)

OPINION


APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. David A. Gunn, Judge. Affirmed.
Cynthia M. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 28, 1994, an information charged defendant and appellant Eddie Cantu Hernandez and a codefendant with burglary of an inhabited dwelling under Penal Code section 459 (count 1), and attempted burglary under Penal Code sections 664 and 459 (count 2).
On August 25, 1995, the information was amended to add count 3, second-degree burglary under Penal Code section 459, to which defendant pled guilty. The court dismissed counts 1 and 2 pursuant to Penal Code section 1385. The court then sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years on count 3.
On May 4, 2017, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18. Defendant requested a reduction of his felony Penal Code section 459 conviction and checked the box indicating that he “believes the value of the check or property does not exceed $950.” Defendant, however, provided no evidence to support his claim. The People filed a response and noted that defendant was not entitled to relief because “Unknown facts, victim, value—[defendant] failed to meet burden.” On October 5, 2017, the trial court denied defendant’s petition without prejudice. At the hearing, the court stated, “I will deny the request. The defense failed to meet the burden.” However, the trial court denied the motion without prejudice and stated, “If counsel gets some more information they can renew the request to reduce the matter.”
On November 15, 2017, defendant filed his timely notice of appeal.
B. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The facts underlying defendant’s conviction for second-degree burglary are not in the record because the relevant dates were more than 20 years ago—1994 and 1995. A reporter’s affidavit of “No Notes” was included in the record. It states, “The notes for this record are more than ten years old and are no longer available for preparation.”
DISCUSSION
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 independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no error.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS


MILLER
J.


We concur:


RAMIREZ
P. J.


McKINSTER
J.