Opinion
E066335
01-11-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CASEY SANTANA, JR., Defendant and Appellant.
James M. Crawford, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. INF055114) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky Dugan, Judge. Affirmed. James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Casey Santana, Jr., was charged by felony complaint with 11 counts of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459, counts 1-8, 10-12) and two counts of second degree burglary (§ 459, counts 9 & 13). The complaint also alleged that defendant had one prior strike conviction. (§§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(1) & 667, subds. (c) & (e)(1).) Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to all of the counts. The court found a factual basis for the plea and dismissed the prior strike allegation. It sentenced defendant to a total term of 20 years eight months in state prison. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.18, with regard to counts 9 and 13. The court denied the motion. Defendant appeals from the denial of his petition for resentencing. We affirm.
All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise noted. --------
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 21, 2007, defendant entered a plea agreement and pled guilty to 11 counts of first degree burglary (§ 459, counts 1-8, 10-12) and two counts of second degree burglary (§ 459, counts 9 & 13). The court sentenced him to 20 years eight months in state prison, in accordance with the plea agreement.
In November 2014, California voters approved Proposition 47 (effective November 5, 2014). (§1170.18.) "Proposition 47 makes certain drug- and theft-related offenses misdemeanors, unless the offenses were committed by certain ineligible defendants. These offenses had previously been designated as either felonies or wobblers (crimes that can be punished as either felonies or misdemeanors)." (People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1091.) "Proposition 47 also created a new resentencing provision: section 1170.18. Under section 1170.18, a person 'currently serving' a felony sentence for an offense that is now a misdemeanor under Proposition 47, may petition for a recall of that sentence and request resentencing in accordance with the statutes that were added or amended by Proposition 47." (Id. at p. 1092.)
As relevant to the present case, Proposition 47 added section 459.5, which provides in part as follows: "Notwithstanding Section 459, shoplifting is defined as entering a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny while that establishment is open during regular business hours, where the value of the property that is taken or intended to be taken does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars ($950)." (§ 459.5, subd. (a).) Shoplifting, as newly defined in section 459.5, is a misdemeanor, unless the offense was committed by certain ineligible defendants. (§ 459.5, subd. (a).)
On February 24, 2016, defendant filed a petition for resentencing, pursuant to Proposition 47, regarding counts 9 and 13. (§ 1170.18.) On June 10, 2016, the court held a hearing and denied the petition, since defendant failed to present any evidence to contradict the report before the court that the commercial establishments were closed when he entered them.
On July 5, 2016, defendant filed a notice of appeal. On July 12, 2016, he filed an amended notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. 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 and no potential arguable issues. Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST
Acting P. J. We concur: McKINSTER
J. CODRINGTON
J.