People v. Badillo CA2/5

Filed 1/28/14 P. v. Badillo CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B247244

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA062793) v.

FILOMENO CARLOS BADILLO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gail Ruderman Feuer, Judge. Affirmed. Agopoglu Law Firm and Berc Agopoglu, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and J. Michael Lehmann, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Filomeno Carlos Badillo pled no contest to making criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422). 1 He was granted probation for five years. Approximately six years later, the trial court denied appellant’s motion made pursuant to section 17, subdivision (b)(3),2 to reduce his felony to a misdemeanor. He contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion. We reject the contention and affirm the judgment.

FACTS

Although the record does not contain a transcript of the preliminary hearing, it does indicate that the trial court reviewed the preliminary hearing transcript and described the context of the offense as follows. “[T]he witness in the preliminary hearing said that [appellant] broke into her locked home with what appeared to be a semi-automatic gun, grabbed her by the shoulder, brought her by the shoulder throughout the house as part of a dispute, and held a gun to her head and threatened to kill her while he was in the bedroom, and the daughter was in the bedroom at the time. The victim’s sister screamed, and then [appellant] left.” The parties do not dispute the accuracy of the court’s recitation of the facts.