Opinion
F077292
12-07-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EVA MARIE MCINTYRE, Defendant and Appellant.
Carol Foster, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. CF00910944)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. W. Kent Hamlin, Judge. Carol Foster, 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., Peña, J. and DeSantos, J.
-ooOoo-
Appellant Eva Marie McIntyre appeals from the trial court's denial of her petition to reduce her prior felony forgery conviction (Pen. Code, § 470) to a misdemeanor (§ 1170.18). Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Proposition 47, which is codified in section 1170.18, reduced the penalties for a number of offenses and creates a process where persons previously convicted of crimes as felonies, which would be misdemeanors under the new definitions in Proposition 47, may petition for resentencing or reduction of the prior convictions. (People v. Sherow (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 875, 879.) Section 1170.18, subdivision (f) provides: "A person who has completed his or her sentence for a conviction, whether by trial or plea, of a felony or felonies who would have been guilty of a misdemeanor under this act had this act been in effect at the time of the offense, may file an application before the trial court that entered the judgment of conviction in his or her case to have the felony conviction or convictions designated as misdemeanors." If McIntyre established that each of her forgery offenses involved an amount that did not exceed $950, she would be entitled to have those convictions reduced, absent any statutory exclusions. (Cf. People v. Hoffman (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1304, 1309.) --------
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On July 12, 2000, while on felony probation for a 1997 forgery conviction, McIntyre opened a savings account at a bank in Clovis. Later that day, she had her daughter deposit into the account a cashier's check in the amount of $9,805.03. A bank employee called the bank that issued the check and found out the check had been canceled and then reissued. The check had originally been made payable to Timothy Coelho but had been altered to be payable to McIntyre.
Officers eventually contacted McIntyre at her home and conducted a probation search. In her purse they found a driver's license, a Social Security card, a bank card and other items containing account numbers and identifying information for Janet Johnson, and a set of identification and credit cards under the name of Michael George Van Wyhe.
On August 4, 2000, the Fresno County District Attorney filed a complaint charging McIntyre with forgery (count 1) and receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)/count 2).
On August 21, 2000, McIntyre pled no contest to forgery and the remaining count was dismissed.
On January 22, 2001, McIntyre was sentenced to the low term of 16 months.
On December 14, 2017, McIntyre filed an application pursuant to section 1170.18 for reduction of felony conviction, asking the court to reduce to misdemeanors her 1997 and 2000 forgery convictions.
On March 12, 2018, the court heard the motion and granted it as to McIntyre's 1997 forgery conviction but denied it as to her 2000 forgery conviction because the amount of the forged check was $9,805.03.
McIntyre's appellate counsel has filed a brief that summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) McIntyre has not responded to this court's invitation to submit additional briefing.
Following an independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.