Opinion
F076015
08-31-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RONNIE EARL HOWELL, Defendant and Appellant.
Cynthia L. Barnes, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. F17902710)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Wayne R. Ellison, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Fresno Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Cynthia L. Barnes, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Franson, Acting P.J., Smith, J. and DeSantos, J.
-ooOoo-
Appointed counsel for defendant Ronnie Earl Howell asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On April 20, 2017, the owner of a store discovered that about $20,000 in cash was missing from an envelope in a bank bag in a drawer. When the owner reviewed surveillance video footage, he saw defendant park his car, enter the store, rummage through the drawer, and then leave holding an envelope.
On July 28, 2017, defendant pled no contest to grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)) with the understanding that he would serve no initial prison time.
On August 25, 2017, the trial court granted the prosecution's motion to reduce the felony charge of grand theft to a misdemeanor pursuant to Penal Code section17, subdivision (b). The court placed defendant on three years' misdemeanor probation and awarded credits.
On September 7, 2017, this court deemed defendant's notice of appeal timely.
We note that although defendant was not convicted of a felony, he was charged with one in the information, and therefore his case is a felony case and appellate jurisdiction properly lies with the Court of Appeal, regardless of the outcome. (Pen. Code, § 691, subd. (f) [" 'Felony case' means a criminal action in which a felony is charged and includes a criminal action in which a misdemeanor or infraction is charged in conjunction with a felony."]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(a)(2)(C) [" '[F]elony case' means any criminal action in which a felony is charged, regardless of the outcome. A felony is 'charged' when an information or indictment accusing the defendant of a felony is filed or a complaint accusing the defendant of a felony is certified to the superior court under Penal Code section 859a. A felony case includes an action in which the defendant is charged with: [¶] ... [¶] (C) An offense filed as a felony but punishable as either a felony or a misdemeanor, and the offense is thereafter deemed a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 17(b)."]; see People v. Lynall (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1109.) --------
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.