Filed 2/14/25 P. v. McFarland CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE THE PEOPLE, A169818 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 105777) MAURICE MCFARLAND, Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Defendant Maurice McFarland appeals from an order denying his petition to reduce his 1991 conviction for second degree robbery from a felony to a misdemeanor. The trial court held that McFarland was ineligible for relief under Penal Code2 section 17, subdivision (b) and that he was also ineligible for relief under section 1203.4 because he was still in custody.

McFarland’s appointed counsel on appeal filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), and McFarland did not file a supplemental brief. Having conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to the holding in Wende, we affirm.

In December 1990, McFarland was charged with one count of robbery, a felony. (§ 211.) In January 1991, he pled guilty to second degree robbery. (Ibid.) Pursuant to the terms of his negotiated plea agreement, the trial court sentenced McFarland to three years of formal probation, including one year in county jail.

In September 2023, McFarland filed a petition to reduce his second degree robbery conviction to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 17, subdivision (b).3 At the October 2023 hearing, the trial court denied the petition, holding that McFarland was ineligible for relief because he was convicted of second degree robbery. The court additionally held that he was ineligible for relief under section 1203.4 because he was currently in custody.

McFarland timely appealed.

The Wende brief filed by McFarland’s counsel does not draw our attention to any issues under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744.

McFarland was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief but did not file one. Following Wende guidelines, we have conducted an independent review of the record and conclude that there are no meritorious issues to be argued on appeal.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

CHOU, J.

We concur.

JACKSON, P. J.

SIMONS, J.

(A169818)