California Court of Appeal Jan 7, 2016 No. E063304Unpublished
Filed 1/7/16 P. v. West 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E063304
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1100385)
FRANCISCO DANIEL WEST, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky Dugan, Judge.
Affirmed.
Jeffrey S. Kross, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General,
and Seth Friedman and Heidi Salerno, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant, Francisco Daniel West, filed a petition for resentencing
pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18,1 which the court denied. On appeal, defendant
contends the court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s petition. We affirm.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 1, 2011, the People charged defendant by felony complaint with
Two].) “[I]t is entirely appropriate to allocate the initial burden of proof to the petitioner
to establish the facts upon which his or her eligibility is based.” (People v. Sherow
4
(2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 875, 880 [defendant failed his burden to establish eligibility for
resentencing under § 1170.18 by failing to prove the value of the items he was convicted
of taking did not exceed $950]; see In re Champion (2014) 58 Cal.4th 965, 1006-1007
[defendant in petition for writ of habeas corpus “‘“bears a heavy burden initially to plead
sufficient grounds for relief, and then later to prove them.”’”]); People v. Kim (2009) 45
Cal.4th 1078, 1101 [defendant bears burden of producing evidence on petition for writ of
coram nobis]; In re Paul W. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 37, 71 [“The petitioner has the
burden of proving the factual contentions contained in the petition by a preponderance of
the evidence.”].)
Here, defendant failed to plead or prove that the value of the stolen objects he pled
guilty to receiving were worth $950 or less. Thus, regardless of any reliance upon the
People’s statement the jewelry was worth thousands of dollars, the court properly denied
defendant’s petition because he failed to meet his burden of proof and production.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
KING J. We concur:
HOLLENHORST Acting P. J.
MILLER J. 5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that a defendant seeking resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18 bears the burden of proving their eligibility, including establishing that the value of the stolen property did not exceed $950.
Issues
Does the defendant or the prosecution bear the burden of proving the value of stolen property in a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18?
Did the trial court err in denying the defendant's petition for resentencing when the defendant failed to establish the value of the stolen property?
Disposition. Affirmed.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The burden of proof lies with defendant to show the facts demonstrating his eligibility for relief, including that the value of the stolen [property] did not exceed $950.”