People v. Dickson CA4/3

Filed 5/2/16 P. v. Dickson CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G051884

v. (Super. Ct. No. 04HF1585)

THOMAS DICKSON, JR., OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kazuharu Makino, Judge. (Retired judge of the Orange Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed without prejudice. Jared G. Coleman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Brendon W. Marshall and Warren J. Williams Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Thomas Dickson, Jr., appeals from an order denying in part his petition to have his felony burglary convictions redesignated as misdemeanor petty thefts under Proposition 47. Defendant contends the court erroneously placed the burden of proving eligibility on him, and mistakenly concluded his felony burglary convictions do not qualify for reclassification as misdemeanors. We disagree and affirm the order. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 2005, a jury convicted defendant of six felony counts of second degree burglary (Pen. Code §§ 459, 460, subd. (b), all subsequent statutory references are to this code), and the court sentenced him to 150 years to life in prison. In 2013, the court granted defendant relief under section 1170.126 and resentenced him to 10 years eight months in prison. In 2015, defendant filed a single page form petition for relief under section 1170.18, subdivisions (f) and (g). The petition was not supported by any documentation, and revealed nothing about the circumstances surrounding the offenses. At the hearing, the prosecutor did not oppose the petition as to count 3, but never explained why. As to counts 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, the prosecutor said: “we’re opposed as to the areas in which the burglaries that were committed were places not open to the general public. They were office buildings in areas where the employer or the employee was at their personal desk.” The court asked, “Are [those] all the same location same time?” The prosecutor replied, “Your honor, they’re all different businesses within a business complex.” Counsel agreed the loss on each was less than $950. Near the end of the hearing, the court stated: “Well, based on what I have so far, I do not think these qualify. Now I wouldn’t necessarily say that they wouldn’t [qualify] depending on the specific facts. It’s possible that they would. But based on what I have heard so far I would say they don’t qualify.” Minutes later the court denied the petition as to counts 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, but granted it as to count 3, all without further explanation and without making any factual findings.