Opinion
C098130
11-15-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PEDRO VASQUES TEGEDA, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 20FE014090
WISEMAN, J. [*]
Defendant Pedro Vasques Tegeda appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18. Appointed counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), requesting we exercise our discretion to review the entire record for arguable issues on appeal. Defendant filed a supplemental brief. We shall affirm.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
BACKGROUND
On May 18, 2022, defendant pleaded no contest in two cases to vehicle theft and second degree robbery, admitting a prior strike in both cases and to personally using a deadly weapon for the robbery conviction. The stipulated facts for defendant's plea for the first case were that defendant robbed a liquor store with a knife, threatening to kill the store clerk in the process. For the second case, defendant unlawfully drove and took a car valued at over $950 without consent and to permanently deprive the owner possession of that car. That same day the trial court sentenced defendant to the stipulated term of six years four months comprised of four years for robbery, 16 months for vehicle theft, and one year for the weapon enhancement.
In November 2022, defendant filed a motion to reduce his vehicle theft conviction to a misdemeanor. On January 4, 2023, the trial court denied the petition by written order finding there was "[n]o showing of value less than $950." Defendant appealed on February 17, 2023.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief.
Defendant filed a supplemental brief asking for a "Prop[osition] 47 misdemeanor rule petition" and stating, "They denied my Prop[osition] 47 because there wasn't proof of the price of the pick-up. I didn't steal it I went for a joyride." We interpret this argument as challenging the trial court's denial of his petition; we find no error here. Following Proposition 47's enactment on November 5, 2014, the crime of receiving stolen property is a misdemeanor if the value of the stolen property received does not exceed $950. (§ 496, subd. (a).) Defendant here pleaded to facts establishing theft of property valued over $950 and did so well after the passage of Proposition 47. We must therefore reject defendant's challenge to the trial court's section 1170.18 finding.
To the extent defendant is challenging the validity of his plea, this appeal was not timely. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.308(a).) And even if it was timely, he did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5, subd. (b); People v. Cuevas (2008) 44 Cal.4th 374, 379.)
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The trial court's order is affirmed.
We concur: ROBIE, Acting P. J. KRAUSE, J.
[*] Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.