Opinion
E070019
07-09-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RYAN LYLE TAYLOR, Defendant and Appellant.
Donna L. Harris, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. INF1300077) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. David A. Gunn, Judge. Affirmed. Donna L. Harris, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2013, defendant and appellant Ryan Lyle Taylor was charged by felony complaint of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a), count 1), possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364.1, count 2), embezzlement of a bicycle worth over $400 (Pen. Code, § 503, count 3), and petty theft (Pen. Code, § 488, count 4). Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to counts 1, 3, and 4, and the court dismissed count 2. The court sentenced defendant to the midterm of two years on both counts 1 and 3, to run concurrent. As to count 4, the court sentenced him to 180 days, to run concurrent with the terms on counts 1 and 3. The court then suspended execution of the two-year term and sentenced defendant to a split sentence of one year in county jail and one year on mandatory supervision, under specified terms. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for resentencing under Proposition 47. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18.) The parties agreed that he was eligible for resentencing on count 1. As to count 3, the People argued defendant failed to meet his burden of proving the bike's value was under $950. The court granted the petition as to count 1, but denied the petition as to count 3 without prejudice, finding the defense failed to meet its burden of proof on the value of the bike.
Defendant appeals from the denial of his petition for resentencing. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On April 15, 2013, defendant entered a plea agreement and pled guilty to possession of controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a), count 1), embezzlement of a bicycle worth over $400 (Pen. Code, § 503, count 3), and petty theft (Pen. Code, § 488, count 4). In accordance with the plea agreement, the court sentenced him to two years on both counts 1 and 3 and 180 days on count 4, all to run concurrent. The court suspended execution of the two-year term and sentenced him to a split sentence of one year in county jail and one year on mandatory supervision, under specified terms.
In November 2014, California voters approved Proposition 47 (effective November 5, 2014). (Pen. Code, § 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.)
On July 7, 2017, defendant filed a petition for resentencing, pursuant to Proposition 47. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18.) On January 11, 2018, the court held a hearing on the petition. Defense counsel informed the court that both sides agreed defendant was eligible for relief on count 1, and then argued as to count 3 that the evidence showed the bike was worth less than $950. Counsel asserted that defendant, who admitted he stole the bike, told another individual that he purchased it for $40. The prosecution argued that defendant failed to meet his burden, since the only apparent evidence was his self-serving statement that the bike cost $40. The court asked if it was an electric bike, and defense counsel said it had a gas motor. The court asked if the defense had any other information on the bike, and he said no. The court found that defendant failed to meet his burden and denied the petition as to count 3 without prejudice.
We note that the record shows defendant's Proposition 47 petition only requested reduction of the conviction in count 1. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350.) However, at the hearing, the parties proceeded as if count 3 was included in the petition. It is not clear if an amended petition was filed, or if defense counsel orally added count 3 to the petition. We will assume that count 3 was included, since the court denied the petition as to that count, without prejudice to defendant filing another one to prove valuation. --------
On February 9, 2018, defendant filed a 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 one potential arguable issue—whether the court abused its discretion by summarily denying defendant's Proposition 47 petition without granting an evidentiary hearing, once trial counsel asserted the value of the bike was below $950. 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
McKINSTER
Acting P. J. We concur: MILLER
J. FIELDS
J.