Filed 12/11/19 P. v. Hoffman CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Lassen)

—-

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

KASEY F. HOFFMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

C088787

(Super. Ct. No. CR024489)

Appointed counsel for defendant Kasey F. Hoffman asked this court to

review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would

result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the trial court’s order denying defendant’s petition to redesignate his 2008 robbery conviction as a misdemeanor.

I

In May 2007, defendant took personal property from Jim G., Andy E., and William M. by means of force or fear. Approximately one year later defendant was convicted by plea of second degree robbery, a felony. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5.) Allegations of two prior prison terms were found true (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and the trial court sentenced defendant to eight years in prison.

In November 2018, defendant filed a section 1170.18 petition to redesignate the robbery conviction as a misdemeanor, asserting that if section 459.5 [shoplifting] had been in effect, he would have been eligible for a shoplifting charge because, notwithstanding his plea, there was insufficient evidence that he committed a robbery. The trial court summarily denied the petition, finding defendant’s crime of robbery was ineligible for relief under section 1170.18.

II

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

/S/

MAURO, J.

We concur:

/S/

RAYE, P. J.

/S/

HULL, J.