People v. Roberson CA3, C080834

Defendant Gary Roberson, an inmate at Folsom State Prison, pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine and marijuana in prison (Pen. Code § 4573.6).
The court imposed a stipulated two-year term, to run consecutively to an eight-year robbery sentence in a separate case.
Roberson petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code § 1170.18 (Prop. 47) seeking reclassification of his possession conviction to a misdemeanor.
The trial court summarily denied the § 1170.18 petition; Roberson appealed and counsel filed a Wende/Anders-style opening brief, and Roberson filed a supplemental brief.
Roberson argued § 1170.18 applies to § 4573.6 offenses, raised an equal protection challenge to exclusion from Prop. 47 relief, and claimed § 4573.6 is void for vagueness.
The Court of Appeal reviewed the record under Wende procedures and affirmed the denial of the resentencing petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1170.18 authorizes resentencing of a § 4573.6 prison-possession conviction	The People: § 1170.18 enumerates eligible offenses and § 4573.6 is not listed	Roberson: § 1170.18 text and equal protection require inclusion of § 4573.6	Held: § 4573.6 is not among listed offenses; statutory claim fails
Whether exclusion of § 4573.6 violates equal protection	People: Legislature/electorate may rationally limit Prop. 47 to specified offenses	Roberson: Exclusion denies equal treatment for similar possession offenses	Held: Rational-basis review applies; exclusion is rational and thus constitutional
Whether § 4573.6 is void for vagueness and thus challengeable in this proceeding	People: Vagueness collateral to the resentencing petition and not a basis here	Roberson: Contends underlying statute is unconstitutionally vague	Held: Vagueness challenge is a collateral attack on the conviction and not proper in § 1170.18 appeal
Applicability of Anders/Wende procedures on appeal from § 1170.18 denial	People: Not directly argued, court notes uncertainty in higher authority	Roberson: Counsel complied with Wende and Roberson submitted a brief	Held: Court prudently applies Wende scrutiny here and finds no arguable issues

Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (court-appointed counsel’s duties on first appeal) (explaining procedures for appellate counsel when no arguable issues exist)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requirement for appointed counsel to file brief identifying any arguable issues)
Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (U.S. 1987) (limits on extending appointed-counsel protections beyond first appeal)
Conservatorship of Ben C., 40 Cal.4th 529 (Cal. 2007) (court reluctance to extend Anders/Wende beyond its core context)
In re Sade C., 13 Cal.4th 952 (Cal. 1996) (guidance on counsel’s duties and appellate review)
People v. Acosta, 242 Cal.App.4th 521 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (applying rational-basis review to classification of offenses under Prop. 47)
People v. Parodi, 198 Cal.App.4th 1179 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (upholding distinction excluding prison-possession offenses from nonviolent drug-possession classifications)