People v. Moon CA2/3

Filed 4/22/16 P. v. Moon CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, B265585

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA332095) v.

ADRIAN DAMICO MOON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David Horwitz, Judge. Affirmed. Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. _____________________

Defendant and appellant Adrian Damico Moon appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to recall his sentence and resentence him pursuant to Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subd. (a)).1 We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Moon was convicted of 19 counts of attempting to file a false or forged instrument (§§ 664, 115), six counts of attempted grand theft (§§ 664, 487), six counts of forgery (§ 470), three counts of preparing false documentary evidence (§ 134), and four counts of offering false evidence (§ 132). In an unpublished opinion, we vacated sentence on one of the forgery counts, ordered sentence on five other counts stayed pursuant to section 654, and otherwise affirmed. (People v. Moon (Dec. 14, 2011, B227559) [nonpub. opn.].)2 Moon was thereafter resentenced to a term of 16 years 8 months in prison. On May 8, 2015, Moon, acting in propria persona, filed a petition for recall of his sentence and resentencing pursuant to Proposition 47, section 1170.18, subdivision (a).3 On June 9, 2015, the trial court denied the petition on the ground Moon’s crimes “are either not Proposition 47 eligible or the value of loss exceeds $950 (real estate).” Moon filed a timely notice of appeal of the trial court’s June 9, 2015 order. We granted Moon’s request that the record be augmented with a settled statement identifying all documents the trial court reviewed in connection with its denial of Moon’s petition, as well as the documents themselves. After review of the augmented record,