People v. Zetino CA2/5

Filed 12/17/15 P. v. Zetino CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B263481

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. PA019262, PA007346 ) v.

JOSE GERMAN ZETINO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Cynthia L. Ulfig, Judge. Affirmed. Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant, Jose German Zetino, appeals from an order denying his Penal Code1 section 1170.18, subdivision (a) (section 1170.18) resentencing motion. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examination of the record, appointed appellate counsel filed an “Opening Brief” in which no issues were raised. Instead, appointed appellate counsel requested we independently review the entire record on appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441. (See Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 276-284.) On August 14, 2015, we advised defendant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or arguments he wishes us to consider. No response has been received. We find no reasonably arguable contentions are raised by the order under review. On October 25, 1991, defendant pled guilty to two counts of second degree robbery in violation of section 211. On July 14, 1995, defendant was convicted following a jury trial of one count of deadly weapon assault in violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(1). After the aggravated assault jury verdict was recorded, defendant admitted that his prior October 25, 1991 convictions were serious felonies pursuant to Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a). Defendant received a sentence of 25 years to life, plus a 5 year enhancement. In his resentencing motion, defendant asserts his prior robbery convictions should be resentenced as misdemeanors under section 1170.18. In his resentencing motion, defendant relied upon section 490.2, subdivision (a) (section 490.2), which provides in pertinent part, “Notwithstanding Section 487 or any other provision of law defining grand theft, obtaining any property by theft where the value of the money, labor, real or personal property taken does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars ($950) shall be considered petty theft and shall be punished as a misdemeanor . . . .” Defendant’s resentencing motion, without citation to any evidence, contends his prior robbery convictions did not result in the taking of property worth more than $950.