People v. Oranje CA1/2

Filed 7/29/15 P. v. Oranje CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A143737 v. DAVID CHRISTOPHER ORANJE, (Lake County Super. Ct. Nos. CR932786 & 933186) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant David Christopher Oranje appeals from Lake County Superior Court’s orders denying his petitions in two criminal cases for recall of sentence and resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18,1 which went into effect on November 5, 2014, as a part of the passage of Proposition 47. Defendant’s appellate counsel finds no arguable issues and asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (see also Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders); People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124 (Kelly)). Counsel has informed defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief and defendant has not done so. Upon review, we conclude there are no arguable issues on appeal and affirm the court’s order. BACKGROUND In June 2013, the Lake County District Attorney filed a complaint against defendant in case number CR932786 that contained two counts of criminal offenses related to allegations that defendant was in unlawful possession of a 2011 Toyota Prius.

1 Further statutory citations are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.

1

Soon thereafter, in August 2013, the District Attorney charged defendant in another criminal case involving a separate incident. This was case number CR933186, in which defendant was charged with six counts of criminal offenses related to allegations that he unlawfully took a motorcycle. In September 2013, defendant entered pleas in both CR932786 and CR933186 at the same hearing. In CR932786, he pleaded no contest to felony violation of section 496d, subdivision (a), receiving or concealing the 2011 Prius.2 In CR933186, he pleaded no contest to a felony violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a), in that he unlawfully drove the motorcycle without the consent of its owner and with the intent to deprive the owner of possession of it. He stipulated to certain facts that indicated liability. The trial court found factual bases for his pleas, that he understood the nature of the crimes and allegations and the consequences of his pleas and admissions, that he entered his pleas freely and voluntarily, that he knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional and statutory rights, and accepted his pleas. In October 2013, the court adjudged defendant guilty of the subject offenses, placed him on probation for three years with standard terms and conditions and suspended imposition of sentences.3 It ordered him to serve 180 days in county jail in each case, awarded him credits for time served and good conduct of 16 days in CR932786 and 128 days in CR933186, and imposed certain fees and fines. It dismissed the remaining counts in the two cases. In February 2014 the probation department alleged defendant had violated terms of his probation. His probation was summarily revoked. In April 2014, pending a