Filed 10/13/17 P. v. Davis CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
LARNETTE COLTAR DAVIS,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
F074375
(Super. Ct. No. FP004215A)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kern County. Eric Bradshaw, Judge.
Susan L. Jordan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appellant Larnette Coltar Davis appeals from the trial court’s denial of her petition for a certificate of rehabilitation and pardon (Pen. Code, § 4852.01 et seq.).[1] Following an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On July 1, 1999, Davis was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), domestic violence (§ 273.5, subd. (a)), and battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)).
Davis was subsequently sentenced to prison. On August 26, 2006, she was discharged from prison. On August 26, 2009, Davis was discharged from parole.
On July 28, 2016, Davis filed a pro se petition for certificate of rehabilitation and pardon. (§ 4852.01.) The petition noted that Davis had been living in Texas since May 1, 2014, through the date the petition was filed.
On August 23, 2016, the Kern County District Attorney filed an opposition arguing that Davis’s petition should be denied because she did not meet the residency requirement of having lived continuously in California for a period of five years immediately preceding the filing date of the petition (§ 4852.06).[2]
On September 6, 2016, the court denied the petition because Davis did not meet the residency requirement.
Davis’s appellate counsel has filed a brief that summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Davis has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing.
Following an independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The order denying the petition is affirmed.
* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Smith, J.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
[2] Section 4852.06 provides: “After the expiration of the minimum period of rehabilitation applicable to him or her and after the termination of parole, probation, postrelease supervision, or mandatory supervision, a person who has complied with the requirements of Section 4852.05 may file in the superior court of the county in which he or she then resides a petition for ascertainment and declaration of the fact of his or her rehabilitation and of matters incident thereto, and for a certificate of rehabilitation under this chapter. A petition shall not be filed until and unless the petitioner has continuously resided in this state, after leaving prison or jail, for a period of not less than five years immediately preceding the date of filing the petition.” (Italics added.)
