P. v.Tarood CA1/2

Filed 2/29/16 P. v.Tarood CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Respondent and Respondent, A145869 v. AMIRAH TAROOD, (Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR271937) Petitioner and Appellant.

Amirah Tarood appeals from the Solano County Superior Court’s order denying her petition, brought pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18,1 to recall her 2010 sentence for felony grand theft and resentence her for misdemeanor grand theft. Her court- appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no legal issues and requesting that this court independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Tarood was informed of her right to file a supplemental brief and has not done so. Upon our independent review of the record pursuant to Wende, we conclude there are no arguable appellate issues for our review and affirm the superior court’s order. BACKGROUND In 2009, Tarood was charged with three counts related to the same incident, in which she purportedly stole property from certain stores in Solano County. She subsequently pled no contest to felony grand theft in violation of section 487, subdivision (a) and was convicted of this offense; the other two counts were dismissed.

1 All statutory references herein are to the Penal Code.

1

The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Tarood on probation with the condition that she serve 120 days in jail. On May 27, 2015, Tarood, via counsel, filed her present petition. It alleges that Tarood was convicted of a violation of “section 487(a). Grand Theft of Less Than 950 USD,” and contends that, pursuant to section 1170.18, subdivisions (f) and (g), Tarood’s felony sentence should be recalled and Tarood resentenced for commission of a misdemeanor. Tarood did not submit any evidence in support of her petition. The People opposed the petition in a three-page brief. They contended that Tarood’s offense did not qualify for reclassification to a misdemeanor because the governing statute, section 490.2, requires that the value of the stolen property not exceed $950. The People pointed out that a February 26, 2010 probation department pre-sentence report stated that Tarood was detained by police at a shopping center in Vacaville, California and found to have stolen property worth $1,556 in her possession. This consisted of $435.83 of Beauty Outlet property, $306.27 of Gap property and $813.90 of Osh Kosh property. The report2 does not state any particulars about how the value of the stolen property was assessed. In a July 2015 hearing on Tarood’s petition, her counsel did not challenge the People’s contention that the value of the stolen property exceeded $950. The court denied Tarood’s petition, stating without further comment that “the amount was in excess of $950. So the motion is denied.” Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. DISCUSSION Tarood was convicted of felony grand theft in violation of section 487. In 2014, California voters passed Proposition 47, which, via sections 1170.18 and 490.2, subdivision (a), allow a court to reclassify such a grand theft conviction from a felony into a misdemeanor where the value of the stolen property does not exceed $950. (See, e.g., People v. Perkins (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 129, 141.)