People v. Cardenas CA2/1

Filed 3/22/16 P. v. Cardenas CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B262132

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA129321) v.

ROBERT CARDENAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Olivia Rosales, Judge. Affirmed. Brad Kaiserman, under appointment of the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Mary Sanchez, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________________

Defendant Robert Cardenas (also known as Robert Medina) appeals from an order denying him resentencing. Cardenas argues he is eligible for resentencing because (1) under Proposition 47 (the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act) (Pen. Code, § 1170.18) (Prop 47) he is statutorily presumed eligible for resentencing, (2) in rebutting this statutory presumption, the prosecution is limited to the record of conviction, (3) the record of conviction is limited to the bare elements of his pleaded-to offense, forgery, because he entered his plea according to People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595 (West), and (4) the bare elements of forgery do not rebut the statutory presumption. We hold the record of conviction supports denying Cardenas resentencing. BACKGROUND On February 7, 2013, Derald Plount, an acquaintance of Cardenas’s, sold a vehicle to Doudy Abankwan for $500. Plount referred Abankwan to Cardenas for engine work the car needed. The buyer delivered the vehicle to Cardenas, but Cardenas did not work on the engine. Instead, Cardenas sold the vehicle to another individual for $400, forging the bill of sale using Plount’s name. The district attorney (D.A.) filed an information on November 12, 2013, charging Cardenas with grand theft auto (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (d)(1)) (count 1); forgery of a vehicle transfer form (§ 470, subd. (d)) (count 2); forgery of an application for a duplicate or paperless title (§ 470, subd. (d)) (count 3); and false personation (§ 529, subd. (a)(2)) (count 4). The D.A. also alleged Cardenas had been convicted of a serious felony under section 667, subdivisions (b) through (j) and section 1170.12, and had been incarcerated for five terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). Cardenas entered a nolo contendere plea under West, supra, 3 Cal.3d 595, to count 2, forgery of a vehicle transfer form. After finding a factual basis for the plea, the court sentenced Cardenas to a total of 32 months in state prison. On November 18, 2014, Cardenas filed a motion for resentencing under Prop 47. The court denied Cardenas’s motion, holding that because Prop 47 did not cover forgeries of documents related to vehicles, he was ineligible for resentencing. Cardenas appealed.