Opinion
E070058
07-09-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANNY BALLESTEROS, Defendant and Appellant.
Richard Jay Moller, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. CR38698) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. David A. Gunn, Judge. Affirmed. Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Danny Ballesteros appeals from the trial court's order denying his petition to redesignate as a misdemeanor his felony conviction for receiving stolen property. We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On March 8, 1991, defendant pled guilty to one count of receiving stolen property, a 1989 Mazda pickup truck. The court sentenced defendant to the mid-term of two years.
On August 31, 2017, defendant filed a form motion under Penal Code section 1170.18, subdivision (f), to recall his felony conviction and reduce it to a misdemeanor. Defendant checked the box indicating he believes the value of the stolen property does not exceed $950.
On January 10, 2018, the People filed its response, arguing defendant is not entitled to relief because he failed to meet his burden.
On February 8, 2018, the court denied the petition because, "There has been no facts presented to determine the amount or value, . . ."
This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Upon defendant's request, this court appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. 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, a summary of the facts and a potential arguable issue, and requesting this court conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The court's order denying the petition is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J. We concur: McKINSTER
J. SLOUGH
J.