From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Morales

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Sep 13, 2022
No. E078984 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 13, 2022)

Opinion

E078984

09-13-2022

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROGELIO VERGARA MORALES, Defendant and Appellant.

Jason L. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County, No. RIF1701355 John D. Molloy, Judge. Affirmed.

Jason L. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

McKINSTER, Acting P. J.

Defendant and appellant, Rogelio Vergara Morales, filed a petition to seal his arrest records pursuant to section 851.91, 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 case and one potentially arguable issue: whether the court erred in denying defendant's petition to seal his arrest records. We affirm.

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On the court's own motion, we take judicial notice of the records, including our prior nonpublished opinions, in defendant's appeals from the denial of his petition for writ of coram nobis (People v. Morales (Sept. 18, 2020, E074767) [nonpub. opn.] (Morales I) and from the judgment (People v. Morales (June 18, 2021, E072462) [nonpub. opn.] (Morales II)). (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 459; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(b).)

On December 3, 2018, a jury convicted defendant, a licensed attorney, of over 60 counts of various offenses including burglaries, extortions, attempted thefts, and disobeying restraining orders. The jury also found true enhancement allegations attached to many of the counts that defendant had committed hate crimes. (Morales I, supra, E074767.) The court sentenced defendant to 22 years of imprisonment. (Ibid.)

On appeal from the judgment, this court reversed counts 1 through 42 and counts 44 through 50; vacated the sentence on counts 43 and 51 through 63; and remanded for retrial counts 40, 42, and 44 at the discretion of the People. (Morales II, supra, E072462.) On remand, the court dismissed most of the counts and resentenced defendant on the remaining counts to three years eight months in state prison.

Defendant thereafter filed a petition to seal his arrest records pursuant to section 851.95 contending that "over 90% of the felony convictions were reversed on insufficient evidence on appeal...." The court denied the request, noting that since defendant had still been convicted of a stalking charge, "I don't believe he's entitled to relief and the petition is denied."

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 order denying defendant's petition is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: MILLER J., CODRINGTON, J.


Summaries of

People v. Morales

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Sep 13, 2022
No. E078984 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 13, 2022)
Case details for

People v. Morales

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROGELIO VERGARA MORALES…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division

Date published: Sep 13, 2022

Citations

No. E078984 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 13, 2022)