Opinion
E065753
02-02-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEVE CLARK GOODMAN, Defendant and Appellant.
Benjamin B. Kington, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. BAF004267) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky Dugan, Judge. Affirmed. Benjamin B. Kington, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Steve Clark Goodman appeals from an order denying his petition to reduce his first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459/460) conviction to a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 1170.18. We find no error and will affirm the order.
All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The factual background is taken from the police report. --------
On September 1, 2005, a residence in Banning was burglarized and officers were dispatched to the area. Upon arrival, the officers saw defendant, who matched the description of the suspect, running into a yard carrying property. Defendant was apprehended and taken into custody. The officers recovered jewelry from defendant's right front pants pocket and two pillow cases full of miscellaneous items from nearby the residence. These items were valued at $4,439.25.
On September 6, 2005, a felony complaint was filed charging defendant with residential burglary (§ 459), receipt of stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)), grand theft exceeding $400 (§ 487, subd. (a)), possession of a controlled substance, to wit, methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), and being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a)).
On October 3, 2005, defendant pleaded guilty to first degree residential burglary. In return, the remaining charges were dismissed and defendant was sentenced to two years in state prison with credit for time served.
On November 4, 2014, voters enacted Proposition 47, entitled "the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act" (hereafter Proposition 47). It went into effect the next day. (Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (a).) As of its effective date, Proposition 47 classifies as misdemeanors certain drug- and theft-related offenses that previously were felonies or "wobblers," unless they were committed by certain ineligible defendants. (§ 1170.18, subd. (a).) Proposition 47 also created a new resentencing provision: section 1170.18. Under section 1170.18, a person currently serving a felony sentence or a person who has completed his or her sentence, whether by trial or plea, for an offense that is now a misdemeanor under Proposition 47, may petition before the trial court that entered the judgment of conviction in his or her case to have the felony conviction designated as a misdemeanor. (§ 1170.18, subds. (a) & (f).)
On December 1, 2015, defendant filed a petition to reduce his burglary conviction to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 1170.18. The People filed a response, noting defendant was ineligible because although the facts and circumstances were unknown, an internet search revealed the address in the complaint is a residence and not a commercial establishment.
On February 24, 2016, the trial court denied defendant's petition, finding first degree burglary in violation of section 459 is "not a qualifying felony."
On April 18, 2016, defendant filed an amended notice of appeal from the denial of his petition.
II
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, upon his 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 potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
As previously noted, Proposition 47 makes certain drug- and theft-related offenses misdemeanors, unless the offenses were committed by certain ineligible defendants. (People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1091.) Among the crimes reduced to misdemeanors by Proposition 47, rendering the person convicted of the crime eligible for resentencing, are: shoplifting where the property value does not exceed $950 (§ 459.5); petty theft, defined as theft of property where value of the money, labor, real or personal property taken does not exceed $950 (§ 490.2); and receiving stolen property where the property value does not exceed $950 (§ 496). (§ 1170.18, subd. (a).) A residential burglary conviction under sections 459 and 460 is not included in the list of nonserious, nonviolent felonies subject to reclassification as misdemeanors under section 1170.18, subdivision (a). Therefore, the trial court properly denied defendant's petition.
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.
III
DISPOSITION
The order denying defendant's section 1170.18 petition to reduce his 2005 first degree burglary conviction to a misdemeanor is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J. We concur: HOLLENHORST
J. McKINSTER
J.