People v. Bryant CA2/7

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 14, 2015B256625California311 words

Opinion

Opinion

Zelon, J.

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent Bryant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. On March 16, 2015, we advised Bryant he had 30 days in which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We have received no response. We have examined the record and are satisfied Bryant’s attorney on appeal has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and there are no arguable issues. (See Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

On November 4, 2014, California voters approved Proposition 47, the “Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act.” In sum, Proposition 47: (1) requires a misdemeanor sentence instead of a felony sentence for certain drug possession offenses; (2) requires a misdemeanor sentence instead of a felony sentence for the crimes of petty theft, receiving stolen property, and forging/writing bad checks, when the amount involved is $950 or less; (3) allows a felony sentence (excluding a defendant from a misdemeanor sentence) for the crimes specified…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.