Opinion
B285439
06-05-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALONZO MCKINNEY, Defendant and Appellant.
Joy A. Maulitz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, and Alonzo McKinney, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. A087124) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, H. Jay Ford, Judge. Affirmed. Joy A. Maulitz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, and Alonzo McKinney, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
Appellant Alonzo McKinney appeals from the trial court's order denying his petition for resentencing under Proposition 47. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18.) Appointed counsel filed an opening brief in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), requesting that this court conduct an independent review of the record to determine if there are any arguable issues on appeal. We have reviewed the record and determined there are no arguable issues. We therefore affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On April 11, 2017, appellant filed a petition for resentencing, pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18, seeking resentencing on his purported conviction for grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487). The trial court denied the petition on the ground that appellant "failed to meet his burden of proof with correct case no." Appellant listed the case number as A087184, but it appears the correct case number is A087124. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from that order.
This is appellant's sixth Wende appeal filed in the last several years, all of which were affirmed. (People v. McKinney (Feb. 4, 2016, B267588) [nonpub. opn.]; People v. McKinney (Oct. 17, 2016, C081334) [nonpub. opn.]; People v. McKinney (May 8, 2017, B271973) [nonpub. opn.]; People v. McKinney (May 19, 2016, B269397) [nonpub. opn.]; People v. McKinney (Nov. 13, 2017, B280346) [nonpub. opn.].)
Appointed counsel filed a Wende brief raising no issues. Appellant filed a Marsden motion seeking to discharge appellate counsel. In his own brief, appellant contends (1) an unauthorized sentence may be corrected at any time, (2) due process entitles him to the application of favorable sentencing statutes, and (3) appointed counsel failed to satisfy his duty to provide effective advocacy. Appellant also moves to augment the record on appeal, but failed to identify any document he wishes to be added to the record. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.155(a), 8.340(c).) The Marsden motion and request to augment the record on appeal are denied.
People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. --------
DISCUSSION
A petitioner seeking resentencing bears the burden to show that he or she is eligible for relief, and to establish the facts upon which his or her eligibility is based. (People v. Johnson (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 953, 962-965; People v. Sweeney (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 295, 302; People v. Perkins (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 129, 136-137; People v. Rivas-Colon (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 444, 449-450; People v. Sherow (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 875, 879-880.) This burden, with respect to theft-related offenses, includes a showing that the value of the relevant property was $950 or less. (Sweeney, at p. 302.) Appellant has not met this burden.
We have reviewed the record, along with the briefs filed by appointed counsel and appellant. We are satisfied appellant's counsel fully complied with her duties under Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and find no arguable issues on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order denying appellant's petition for resentencing is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
EPSTEIN, P. J. We concur:
WILLHITE, J.
MANELLA, J.