People v. Brim CA2/8

DISCUSSION

Appellant’s supplemental brief contends the court erred because his 1982 conviction is “invalid” and has “no factual basis.” He asserts he never actually pled guilty in 1982, despite the presence in the record of a minute order from his 1982 plea hearing and his Tahl1 waiver form. First, the trial court already rejected this same contention when appellant filed a motion to vacate his 1982 conviction, and we dismissed his appeal in that case because the order denying his motion to vacate was nonappealable. (People v. Brim (Nov. 9, 2011, B228977) [nonpub. opn.].) Second, even if appellant’s

In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122.

2 contention had merit, the basis for his plea has nothing to do with whether the conviction may be reclassified under Proposition 47. The trial court did not err in determining appellant’s conviction was not eligible for reclassification. Proposition 47 applies to certain drug possession offenses, but not possession for sale. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subd. (a); 3 Witkin, California Criminal Law 4th (2015 supp.) Punishment, § 308A, p. 73.) Having examined the entire record and appellant’s contentions, we are satisfied no arguable issues exist and…