People v. Crone CA2/6

Filed 11/17/15 P. v. Crone CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B263230 (Super. Ct. No. 2014018052) Plaintiff and Appellant, (Ventura County)

v.

ROBERT LEE CRONE,

Defendant and Respondent.

The People appeal an order reducing two charged felony offenses against respondent Robert Lee Crone to misdemeanors. Following a preliminary hearing in which respondent was held to answer (Pen. Code, § 872),1 the People filed an information charging him with felony possession of methamphetamine, felony possession of cocaine, and possession of a smoking device (Health & Saf. Code § 11377, subd. (a), 11350, subd (a), former § 11364.1, subd. (a)), with prior strike and prison term allegations (§§ 1170, subd. (h)(3), 667.5, subd. (b)). Before the entry of a guilty plea, the trial court, citing section 17, subdivision (b), reduced the felony offenses to misdemeanors. The People contend that the court

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.

lacked authority to reduce the charges. Respondent concedes the error "because of the timing." We reverse. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On June 12, 2014, respondent was asleep in a vehicle parked in front of a 24-hour donut shop when police officers arrived to check on his "well being." They awakened him, and with his consent searched his fanny pack. It contained usable quantities of rock and powder cocaine, methamphetamine, and a smoking device. Respondent was arrested and charged with two felonies, possession of methamphetamine and possession of cocaine, and for possessing a smoking device. The preliminary hearing took place on November 25 and 26, 2014, after the passage of Proposition 47. Respondent moved the magistrate (Mark S. Borrell) to have his felony possession of methamphetamine and possession of cocaine offenses declared to be misdemeanors pursuant to Proposition 47. The People opposed the motion, arguing that respondent was not eligible for such relief because he had a prior "super strike"2 as defined in section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(C)(iv). The People proved that in 1976, and while a juvenile, appellant pled guilty to a kidnapping charge to facilitate the commission of a felony or flight in 1975 in Minnesota. (Minn. Stats. 1974, Crim. Code of 1963, § 609.25, subd. (2)(1).) The People argued that because the Minnesota offense included all the elements of kidnapping in the commission of carjacking, as defined in section 209.5, it constituted a disqualifying super strike under Proposition 47. The magistrate found that respondent's prior Minnesota juvenile offense was a super strike, denied his motion to reduce his offenses to misdemeanors, and held him to answer.