PEOPLE v. MAIHART

No. D071851.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JONATHAN A. MAIHART, Defendant and Appellant.

Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Theresa Osterman Stevenson , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

HUFFMAN, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying Jonathan A. Maihart's petition under Proposition 47 (Pen. Code,1 § 1170.18, the Safe Neighborhoods and Streets Act) to reclassify one of his felony convictions as a misdemeanor. The trial court found that Maihart's felony conviction for creating a counterfeit access card under section 484f, subdivision (a) was not eligible for reclassification under Proposition 47.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Maihart entered into a plea agreement in November 2015. Under the agreement Maihart pleaded guilty to making a counterfeit access card (§ 484f, subd. (a)),2 and possessing methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378). He admitted a strike prior conviction (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The parties stipulated to a term of five years four months. The remaining charges were dismissed. Maihart was sentenced to the stipulated term.

In January 2017, Maihart filed a petition to recall the judgment and to resentence the section 484f, subdivision (a) count. The court denied the petition because convictions under section 484f, subdivision (a) are not eligible for relief under Proposition 47. Maihart filed a timely notice of appeal from the denial of his petition.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating she has not been able to identify any arguable issue for reversal on appeal. We offered Maihart the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.3

DISCUSSION

As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified a possible, but not arguable issue:

Whether the trial court erred in finding Maihart's conviction under section 484f, subdivision (a) was ineligible for resentencing under section 1170.18.

We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Maihart on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The order denying the petition for resentencing under section 1170.18 is affirmed.

McCONNELL, P. J. and IRION, J., concurs.

FootNotes


1. All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
2. Section 484f, subdivision (a) provides: "Every person who, with the intent to defraud, designs, makes, alters, or embosses a counterfeit access card or utters or otherwise attempts to use a counterfeit access card is guilty of forgery."
3. Since this appeal does not involve the facts of the underlying offense, we will omit the traditional statement of facts.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases