California Court of Appeal Apr 29, 2016 No. E064391Unpublished
Filed 4/29/16 P. v. Glover CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E064391
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1401340)
WILLIE EARL GLOVER JR., OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky Dugan, Judge.
Affirmed.
Cindy Brines, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Willie Earl Glover Jr. appeals from an order denying his
petition for resentencing and to reduce his current offenses of second degree burglary
1
(Pen. Code, § 459)1 and grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a)) to misdemeanors under the Safe
Neighborhoods and Schools Act (Proposition 47). (§ 1170.18.) We find no error and
On May 18, 2015, the trial court denied defendant’s petition, finding defendant
was ineligible for relief because the loss exceeded $950.
II
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to
represent him on appeal. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a
statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and
requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he
has not done so.
As previously noted, on November 4, 2014, voters enacted Proposition 47, which
made certain crimes misdemeanors that previously had been felonies or wobblers (crimes
3
that can be punished as either felonies or misdemeanors). (People v. Rivera (2015) 233
Cal.App.4th 1085, 1091.) Specifically, the proposition added or amended Penal Code
sections 459.5, 473, 476a, 490.2, 496, 666, and Health and Safety Code sections 11350,
11357, 11377. Proposition 47 also added, among other statutory provisions, Penal Code
section 1170.18. (People v. Contreras (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 868, 889-890.)
Section 1170.18 creates a process through which qualified persons previously convicted
of crimes as felonies, which would be misdemeanors under the new definitions in
Proposition 47, may petition for resentencing. (See generally People v. Lynall (2015)
233 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1108-1109.)
A qualifying person serving a sentence for a felony that was reclassified under
Proposition 47 may petition the trial court for a recall of sentence and request
resentencing, which must be granted “unless the court, in its discretion, determines
that resentencing the petitioner would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to
public safety.” (§ 1170.18, subds. (a)-(c).) As pertinent here, Proposition 47
permits a felon serving a sentence for second degree burglary of a commercial
establishment—shoplifting—and/or grand theft to petition the court for resentencing as a
misdemeanant if the value of the property taken was $950 or less. (§§ 459.5, 490.2.)
Here, defendant was ineligible for Proposition 47 relief because the value of the stolen
property exceeded $950.
4
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error
that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
III
DISPOSITION
The order denying defendant’s Proposition 47 petition is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ P. J. We concur:
HOLLENHORST J.
McKINSTER J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's petition for resentencing under Proposition 47 because the value of the stolen property exceeded the $950 statutory threshold.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Here, defendant was ineligible for Proposition 47 relief because the value of the stolen property exceeded $950.”