People v. Peterson CA3

Filed 12/4/24 P. v. Peterson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C100332

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. STK-CR-FE- 2001-0007472, SF073601B, v. STK-CR-FE-1998-0007537, SF082435A) MILFORD PETERSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Milford Peterson1 appeals from a postconviction order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code2 section 1172.75. Appointed counsel for defendant asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any

1 Defendant’s name appears as “Milford Jay Peterson” and “Milford Peterson” in the record. We use the latter name in this opinion. 2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This case arises out of two separate cases that have since had their case numbers changed in the trial court. The first case was originally numbered SF073601B but is now STK-CR-FE-1998- 0007537 (stolen bicycle case). In that case in 1998, officers found defendant in possession of a stolen bicycle. Defendant pled guilty to felony petty theft with two priors and admitted two prior prison terms. The trial court suspended execution of sentence and granted defendant probation for five years. In 2000, the trial court revoked defendant’s probation and sentenced him to three years on the petty theft charge and one year on each of the prior prison terms. The trial court suspended the criminal proceedings in favor of a commitment to the California Rehabilitation Center. In 2019, defendant filed a petition under Proposition 47 and the trial court reduced defendant’s petty theft conviction in the stolen bicycle case to a misdemeanor based on a stipulation of the parties that included, in part, the representation defendant had completed his sentence in that case. The trial court, however, did not issue any findings as to the attached prior prison term enhancements. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) By the express language of the statute, however, prior prison term enhancements attach only to convictions for felony offenses. (Ibid.) In 2022, the trial court set a hearing in the stolen bicycle case pursuant to section 1172.75 because the trial court records indicated the judgment in that case included enhancements pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b). At the hearing on that matter, the trial court formally struck the two prior prison enhancements as they could not attach to the misdemeanor conviction when it was reduced in 2019. Defendant did not appeal from that order.