People v. White CA2/4

Filed 3/23/16 P. v. White CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B264668 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA097117) v.

JAMES WHITE, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Steven P. Sanora, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Benjamin P. Lechman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Sanchez and Chung L. Mar, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Appellant James White pleaded guilty to grand theft after he stole a necklace in 2012. The early disposition report by the probation officer stated that the necklace was worth about $350. The People expressly stipulated to the facts in the early disposition report when it accepted White’s plea. In 2015, White sought to have his conviction reclassified as a misdemeanor under Proposition 47. The trial court denied the request on erroneous legal grounds. Respondent Attorney General agrees the trial court erred, but argues that the case must be remanded so the trial court can make a factual finding as to the value of the necklace. No additional factual finding is necessary. White met his prima facie burden to show that the necklace was valued at about $350, and the People have stipulated to that fact. Respondent offers no indication that the value of the necklace is in dispute. Because eligibility for reclassification under Proposition 47 is evident in the record, there is no need for an additional factual finding on remand. We therefore reverse with directions to the trial court to grant White’s petition. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The People filed a two-count complaint against White on March 2, 2012. The complaint alleged that on February 29, 2012, White committed robbery by taking personal property by force or fear (count 1, Penal Code section 211,1 a felony) and that White disobeyed a domestic relations court order (count 2, section 273.6, subdivision (a), a misdemeanor). A probation officer’s early disposition report states, “The victim is the defendant’s mother, and she has an active restraining order against him . . . . On 02/29/2012, the defendant demanded money from the victim. When she refused to give him the money, he snatched a chain from her neck, and left the location.” The early disposition report also says, “On 03/06/12, at approximately 12 noon, by phone, the probation officer spoke