How has the Court considered a motion to reduce a defendant's criminal threat conviction to a misdemeanor?

Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and a few potential arguable issues: (1) whether defendant's conviction of criminal threats (Pen. Code, 422) qualifies for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18, subdivision (a), or reclassification under Penal Code section 1170.18, subdivision (f); (2) whether the court considering defendant's Proposition 47 petition was required and authorized to sua sponte consider whether to reduce his other conviction under Penal Code section 666 to a misdemeanor; (3) while this appeal is pending, whether this court has jurisdiction and authority to designate a qualifying current conviction for violating Penal Code section 666 as a misdemeanor; (4) while this appeal is pending, whether this court has jurisdiction and authority to designate prior convictions for violating Vehicle Code section 10851 as misdemeanors; and (5) if this court lacks jurisdiction and authority to consider whether the convictions under Penal Code section 666 and Vehicle Code section 10851 should be resentenced and/or reclassified as misdemeanors, should the current matter on the conviction for making criminal threats (Pen. Code, 422) be remanded with directions to allow defendant to pursue a properly filed petition. Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.

Page 5

Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

The judgment is affirmed.