Filed 7/9/14 P. v. Daniels CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B254602 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA301458) v. MICHAEL DANIELS, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. William C.

Ryan, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.

___________________________________ In 2008, a jury convicted Michael Daniels of one count of driving under the influence and causing injury to another (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)), and one count of driving with a blood alcohol level of .08 percent or more and causing injury to another (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b)). As to each count, the jury also found Daniels personally inflicted great bodily injury within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.7, subdivision (b).1 The trial court found Daniels suffered three prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(c)), four prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)), and had served four prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). He was sentenced to 45 years to life in state prison.2 In September 2013, Daniels filed a petition seeking resentencing under Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (§ 1170.126). The trial court denied the petition. We affirm.

FACTS We detailed the underlying facts in a nonpublished opinion deciding Daniels’s direct appeal from the jury conviction (People v. Daniels, B208132, Aug. 31, 2009.)

Those facts are not at issue here. In September 2013, Daniels sought resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act (the Act).3 The trial court denied the petition. In a written ruling, the trial court explained that one of Daniels’s current felony convictions was for driving under the influence and causing great bodily injury (Veh. Code, § 13152, subd. (a)), and the jury found true the allegation that during the commission of the crime, Daniels caused great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (b).), which made the underlying

DISCUSSION Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.4 We appointed appellate defense counsel. On May 29, 2014, appellant’s appointed counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). On the same day, we notified appellant by letter that he could submit within 30 days any ground of appeal, contention, or argument which he wished us to consider. Daniels filed a response.

We briefly address his contentions.

Daniels asserts he was denied effective assistance of counsel due to the inadequate performance of his appointed counsel in the trial court and on appeal. Daniels contends: “Counsel in this specific instance did not provide a meritorious argument to conclude that defendant an appellant is eligible or suitable to be resentenced pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.126.” Daniels then appears to argue the trial court had the discretion to strike the great bodily injury enhancement. We must reject these arguments.

Section 1170.126, subdivision (e) provides that an inmate is eligible for resentencing under the Act if “(1) The inmate is serving an indeterminate term of life imprisonment imposed pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 667 or subdivision (c) of Section 1170.12 for a conviction of a felony or felonies that are not defined as serious and/or violent felonies by subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or

The record neither supports a claim that the trial court erred in denying Daniels’s petition for resentencing, nor supports a claim that Daniels’s counsel was ineffective for failing to raise arguments in the trial court, or in filing a Wende brief.

To the extent Daniels challenges the evidence supporting the jury’s true finding on the great bodily injury enhancement, any such argument should have been raised in the previous direct appeal. Issues regarding the evidence presented at trial, including the evidence supporting the bodily injury enhancement, any alleged prosecutorial failure to disclose exculpatory evidence, and issues regarding victim restitution, were not before the trial court in the proceedings below or factors in the order challenged in this appeal.

We have independently reviewed the record submitted on appeal, and are satisfied that Daniels’s appointed counsel has fulfilled his duty, and that no arguable issues exist. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

BIGELOW, P. J.

We concur:

RUBIN, J.

GRIMES, J.