People v. Colbert CA2/3 ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Filed 4/6/21 P. v. Colbert CA2/3
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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    has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION THREE
    THE PEOPLE,                                                 B306282
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                          Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No. KA029185
    v.
    GEORGE KENNETH COLBERT,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
    Los Angeles County, William C. Ryan, Judge. Affirmed.
    Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court
    of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
    No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    _________________________
    In 1996 a jury convicted defendant and appellant George
    Kenneth Colbert of possession of a completed check with intent to
    defraud in violation of then-applicable Penal Code section 475a.1
    In a priors trial, the jury found true allegations that Colbert had
    suffered three prior strikes under the Three Strikes law. The
    trial court sentenced Colbert to 25 years to life in the state
    prison.
    In 2017, Colbert filed a petition for resentencing under
    the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, commonly known
    as Proposition 47. (See § 1170.18, subds. (b), (g).) Colbert
    apparently already was represented by court-appointed counsel
    but filed the petition pro se. On May 9, 2017, the court filed a
    written order denying Colbert’s petition. The court noted Colbert
    was represented by counsel and, accordingly, was not permitted
    to file documents pro se. Second, the court stated, a conviction
    for violating section 475a is not one of the enumerated crimes
    subject to Proposition 47 relief under section 1170.18, subdivision
    (a).
    Colbert attempted to appeal from the May 9, 2017 order.
    After a considerable amount of procedural back-and-forth that we
    need not detail here, on June 29, 2020, we granted Colbert relief
    from default and permitted his notice of appeal, dated July 6,
    2017, to be filed. The notice of appeal was filed on July 10, 2020.2
    1     References to statutes are to the Penal Code. Section 475a
    was repealed by Stats. 1998, ch. 468, § 5. The applicable code
    section as of 1998 is section 475, subdivision (c). (See 2 Witkin &
    Epstein, California Criminal Law (4th ed. 2020) Crimes Against
    Property, § 178.)
    2     In the meantime, in September 2020, the court granted
    Colbert’s petition for recall and resentencing under section
    1170.126, commonly known as Proposition 36. On October 6,
    2020, the court resentenced Colbert to six years, gave him credit
    2
    We appointed counsel to represent Colbert on appeal.
    After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising
    no issues and asking this court independently to review the
    record under People v. Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 436
     (Wende).
    Counsel notified Colbert that he could file a supplemental brief
    within 30 days.
    On January 25, 2021, Colbert submitted a supplemental
    brief. Colbert refers to “the right to effective assistance of
    appellate counsel” and then argues the trial court’s May 9, 2017
    order “summarily dismissed [his] petition for resentencing
    without giving [him] an opportunity to present evidence in
    mitigatince [sic].”
    We have reviewed the entire record. The trial court
    correctly ruled that a felony conviction under former section 475a
    is not one of the crimes encompassed within Proposition 47. (See
    Couzens et al., Sentencing California Crimes (The Rutter Group
    2020) Appen. 25C.)
    We are satisfied that Colbert’s counsel has fully complied
    with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist.
    (People v. Kelly (2006) 
    40 Cal.4th 106
    , 109-110; Wende, supra,
    25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
    for time served, and ordered him released and placed on post-
    release community supervision.
    3
    DISPOSITION
    We affirm the trial court’s order denying George Kenneth
    Colbert’s petition for resentencing under Proposition 47.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
    EGERTON, J.
    We concur:
    EDMON, P. J.
    LAVIN, J.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B306282

Filed Date: 4/6/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/6/2021