California Court of Appeal Feb 2, 2016 No. E063474Unpublished
Filed 2/2/16 P. v. Allen 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E063474
v. (Super.Ct.No. SWF1302061)
ERIC CHRISTIAN ALLEN, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky Dugan, Judge.
Reversed.
Jan B. Norman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Kristine A.
Gutierrez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Eric Christian Allen appeals after the trial court denied
his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18. Defendant argues that
the trial court mistakenly believed defendant had been convicted of an offense for which
resentencing is not allowed, and the court therefore erred in denying his petition.
Here, the prosecutor and the trial court mistakenly believed that defendant’s
petition was based on a conviction of burglary, for which he sought reduction to
misdemeanor shoplifting; for that reason, the hearing on his petition was focused on
whether the theft involved a commercial establishment and whether the property taken
exceeded the value of $950.
4
As the People observe in the respondent’s brief, “Because [defendant] was
convicted of receiving stolen property, not burglary, it was irrelevant whether the
recycling center was a commercial establishment. Instead, the relevant question was
whether the value of the property exceeded $950.”
DISPOSITION
The order denying defendant’s petition for resentencing is reversed. The matter is
remanded for a new hearing on defendant’s petition for resentencing. Because
defendant’s conviction was for receiving stolen property, the relevant inquiry is whether
the value of the property exceeded $950. (See Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a).) In addition,
the court may consider whether resentencing defendant would pose an unreasonable risk
of danger to public safety. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subd. (b).)
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER J. We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
MILLER J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the trial court erred in denying a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18 by mistakenly analyzing the petition as a burglary conviction rather than a conviction for receiving stolen property.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in denying a petition for resentencing based on a mistaken belief regarding the underlying conviction offense.
Disposition. Reversed and remanded
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Defendant argues that the trial court mistakenly believed defendant had been convicted of an offense for which resentencing is not allowed, and the court therefore erred in denying his petition.”
“Because [defendant] was convicted of receiving stolen property, not burglary, it was irrelevant whether the recycling center was a commercial establishment.”