facts do not support the conviction for first degree burglary. Appellant was not entitled to a hearing on his eligibility for resentencing pursuant to Proposition 47. A petitioner has the initial burden to show his eligibility for resentencing in his petition for resentencing. If a petitioner makes a sufficient showing, a court can take such action as appropriate to grant the petition, including holding a hearing to make a further factual determinations. However, because first degree burglary is not among the eligible offenses enumerated in Proposition 47, appellant could not establish his eligibility for resenting, with or without a hearing. (People v. Sherow (2015) 239

2 At the appellant’s request, we will take judicial notice of the record and our decision in case number H033678. 2 Cal.App.4th 875, 880.) Therefore, the trial court did not err in summarily denying the petition. Appellant also argues that the facts underlying his conviction support a charge of trespassing, and not of first degree burglary. To the extent he seeks to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, the challenge is untimely. His conviction was affirmed on appeal in this court and the judgment is long since final. Such an argument is not properly raised in an appeal from a post judgment order denying a petition for resentencing. As nothing in appellant’s supplemental brief raises an arguable issue on appeal, we must dismiss the appeal. (Serrano, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at pp. 503-504.)

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

3 _____________________________________

RUSHING, P.J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________________

PREMO, J.

_________________________________

ELIA, J.