California Court of Appeal Sep 4, 2015 No. E063375Unpublished
Filed 9/4/15 P. v. Mesa CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E063375
v. (Super.Ct.No. FVI1202750)
MICHAEL JOSEPH MESA, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Smith,
Judge. (Retired Judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Michael Joseph Mesa appeals from an order denying
his petition to reduce his convictions to misdemeanors pursuant to Penal Code
section 1170.18.1 We find no error and will affirm the order.
I
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 23, 2012, a felony complaint was filed against defendant charging him
(1) added chapter 33 to the Government Code (§ 7599 et seq.), (2) added sections 459.5,
490.2, and 1170.18 to the Penal Code, and (3) amended Penal Code sections 473, 476a,
496, and 666 and Health and Safety Code sections 11350, 11357, and 11377.” (People v.
Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1091, citing Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec.
(Nov. 4, 2014) text of Prop. 47, §§ 4-14, pp. 70-74.)
Here, as the trial court concluded, the record shows defendant was ineligible for
reduction of his offenses to misdemeanors and for resentencing under section 1170.18
due to “the nature of the charges or the amounts involved.”
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error
that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
5
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ P. J. We concur:
HOLLENHORST J.
CODRINGTON J.
6
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the defendant's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18, finding no error in the determination that the defendant's convictions were ineligible for reduction.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's petition to reduce felony convictions to misdemeanors under Penal Code section 1170.18.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We find no error and will affirm the order.”
“the record shows defendant was ineligible for reduction of his offenses to misdemeanors and for resentencing under section 1170.18 due to “the nature of the charges or the amounts involved.””