Filed 4/3/17 P. v. Wilkinson CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(El Dorado)
----



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TODD MARTIN WILKINSON,

Defendant and Appellant.
C082989

(Super. Ct. No. CP96F00171)




This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we affirm the trial court’s order denying defendant Todd Martin Wilkinson’s petition for resentencing pursuant to Proposition 47. (See Pen. Code, § 1170.18.)
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In October 1996, defendant was convicted of felony unlawful possession of Valium (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) and granted section 1000 drug diversion in case No. CP96F00171. In June 1997, defendant was convicted of rape of an unconscious victim (§ 261, subd. (a)(4)) in case No. CP97F00111. Sentencing defendant in both cases, the trial court imposed a six-year term in state prison.
In May 2016, defendant filed a section 1170.18 petition to designate the drug possession conviction a misdemeanor. The trial court appointed counsel for defendant to review possible grounds for writ relief and assist him on the section 1170.18 petition.
Defendant’s petition was denied by the trial court on the ground that his rape conviction made him a section 290 registrant, and therefore ineligible for section 1170.18 relief. (§§ 1170.18, subd. (i), 290, subd. (c).)
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief.
Whether the protections afforded by Wende, and the United States Supreme Court decision in Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [18 L.Ed.2d 493], apply to an appeal from an order denying a petition brought by section 1170.18, remains an open question. Our Supreme Court has not spoken. The Anders/Wende procedures address appointed counsel’s representation of an indigent criminal defendant in the first appeal as a matter of right and courts have been reluctant to expand their application to other proceedings or appeals. (See Pennsylvania v. Finley (1987) 481 U.S. 551 [95 L.Ed.2d 539]; Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529; In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952; People v. Dobson (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1422; People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304; People v. Thurman (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 36; Glen C. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 570.) Nonetheless, in the absence of Supreme Court authority to the contrary, we believe it prudent to adhere to Wende in the present case, where counsel has already undertaken to comply with Wende requirements and defendant has filed a supplemental brief.
Defendant filed a supplemental brief asserting the trial court’s decision was in error because his offense qualifies for section 1170.18 relief. Although a conviction for violating Health and Safety Code section 11350 can be reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 1170.18 (see § 1170.18, subd. (a)), defendant’s conviction for rape of an unconscious victim (§ 261, subd. (a)(4)) makes him a section 290 sex offender registrant, rendering him ineligible for relief. (§ 1170.18, subd. (i).) The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s petition.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment (order) is affirmed.



MURRAY , J.



We concur:



NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.



HULL , J.