People v. Beauregard CA2/8

Filed 3/23/16 P. v. Beauregard CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B265057

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA063751) v.

DEREK LAMONT BEAUREGARD,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Bernie C. Laforteza, Judge. Affirmed as modified.

Nancy Gaynor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________

Defendant stole some items, valued at approximately $1000, from a mailbox rental store. He then went to a pawn shop, purporting to pawn the stolen items. Instead of pawning them, he grabbed some iPods from the pawn shop and fled. When he ran, he dropped a box of items in the parking lot, which included the items he had stolen from the mailbox rental store. A deputy sheriff subsequently stopped defendant on the street; defendant ran when the deputy tried to speak to him. He was discovered hiding, with the stolen iPods nearby. He was also in possession of a bottle of Hydrocodone pills, from which he had removed the label. On August 25, 2014, defendant was charged by information with: (1) burglary of the mailbox store (Pen. Code, § 459); (2) grand theft from the mailbox store (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)); (3) burglary of the pawn shop; (4) receiving stolen property, the pills (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)); and (5) resisting arrest (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)). The burglaries and grand theft were felonies; the remaining two offenses misdemeanors. Three prior prison terms were also alleged. (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).) While the case was proceeding to trial, Proposition 47 was passed by the voters. The attorneys were investigating the value of the property taken from the mailbox rental store, to see if it met the $950 threshold dividing burglary from the newly-enacted shoplifting offense. (Pen. Code, § 459.5.) At a hearing on December 18, 2014, the prosecutor stated that it appeared that “the value of the property is going to end up being less than $950.” The prosecutor indicated an intention to file an amended information which would reduce the first burglary charge, but would also add additional misdemeanor counts. As the parties were discussing the viability of the counts the prosecutor sought to pursue in an amended information, the court made the following offer: “[I]f the defendant wants to plead to all counts looking at the court, I will 17(b) as misdemeanors, but I’m not going to give you – indicate how much time you will get.” The court then added, “I will tell you this: I won’t max him out.” Defendant accepted the offer. Defendant entered a plea of no contest to all five counts; the court found defendant guilty. The court then reduced the three felony counts to misdemeanors under Penal