People v. Mendoza CA4/3

Filed 9/29/15 P. v. Mendoza CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G051352

v. (Super. Ct. No. 14WF1999)

ALEXIS DANIEL PEREZ MENDOZA, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan S. Fish, Judge. Affirmed. Rex Adam Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

Defendant Alexis Daniel Perez Mendoza appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing under the “Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act” (Proposition 47). We conclude there are no arguable issues to assert on defendant’s behalf on appeal. In October 2014, defendant pleaded guilty to taking a vehicle without the owner’s consent, a felony violation of Vehicle Code section 10851 (section 10851), and admitted he had suffered a prior section 10851 felony conviction in 2013. The court imposed a split sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h), consisting of 16 months in jail followed by eight months of supervision. Following the passage of Proposition 47 in November 2014, defendant filed a petition pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18, subdivision (a) (section 1170.18(a)), seeking to recall the sentence on his 2014 vehicle theft conviction, and to have that offense reduced to a misdemeanor. The People filed opposition, asserting defendant did not meet the criteria for obtaining relief under section 1170.18(a), because section 10851 is not one of the enumerated qualifying offenses. Defendant then filed a supplemental petition, arguing vehicle theft in violation of section 10851 is a theft within the meaning of Proposition 47, at least in cases where the value of the vehicle taken is $950 or less. On December 30, 2014, the court denied the petition, stating section 10851 “does not fall within Prop 47.” This timely appeal followed. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed a brief summarizing the proceedings and facts of the case and advised us he found no arguable issues to assert on defendant’s behalf. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders); People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We notified defendant he could file written argument on his own behalf, but the period to do so has passed and we received no communication from him.