Opinion
E073058
11-27-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAYMON BAIZ ARAGON, Defendant and Appellant.
Bruce L. Kotler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. SWF1200995) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge. Affirmed. Bruce L. Kotler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant, Raymon Baiz Aragon, filed a petition for reduction of his offense from a felony to a misdemeanor pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18, which the court denied. After defendant filed a notice of appeal, 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 facts, a statement of the case, and one potentially arguable issue: whether the court abused its discretion in denying defendant's petition. We affirm.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. --------
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The People charged defendant by felony information with receiving stolen property, a tool chest, on or about February 27, 2012. (§ 496, subd. (a).) The People additionally alleged defendant suffered a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and violated the terms of his probation in two other cases.
In determining whether the court would accept the plea agreement, the court asked: "Well, my question is—I'm just throwing this out. It looks like we're not giving him any penalty for having 10 cases in our county because we're running everything concurrent with [Los Angeles]. The only thing we're doing is one year on mandatory supervision." "Now what we're doing—it just looks to me like all we're doing is giving him two years of—the guy's got 10 cases in our county, and we're not doing anything to him except giving him two years of supervised release. That doesn't seem right to me." "But the question, you know, in my mind is: The guys' got 10 cases here, and we're basically just giving him two years of supervised release other than what he has in [Los Angeles]. I don't get that."
The court eventually relented, accepting the plea agreement. Defendant pled guilty to receiving stolen property. (§ 496, subd.(a); count 1.) Defendant admitted as the factual basis of his plea "that on February 27th of 2012, in the [C]ounty of Riverside, [he] did possess property [he] knew to be stolen[.]"
The court also took pleas in an additional felony case, two violations of probation, and two misdemeanor cases. Pursuant to the plea agreement in the instant case, the court sentenced defendant to a split sentence of two years in custody and one year in mandatory supervision "concurrent with all the other cases, including the [Los Angeles] cases." The court struck the prior prison term and dismissed the balance of the complaint.
On January 15, 2019, defendant filed a petition for reduction of his conviction in the instant case from a felony to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 1170.18. Defendant checked a box on the form petition reflecting he believed the value of the stolen property he pled guilty to possessing did not exceed $950. The People opposed the petition, noting that defendant had failed to meet his burden of proof on the petition. The court set a hearing on the petition, noting it needed the value of the stolen tool chest defendant pled guilty to possessing. At the hearing on the petition, defense counsel submitted on the petition. The People argued the defense had failed to meet its burden. The court denied the petition without prejudice.
II. DISCUSSION
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
J. We concur: RAMIREZ
P. J. RAPHAEL
J.