People v. Fernando CA2/3

Filed 6/7/16 P. v. Fernando CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B265848

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA367193) v.

LLOYD R. FERNANDO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Karla D. Kerlin, Judge. Affirmed.

Janet Uson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. _____________________

On August 6, 2010, defendant and appellant Lloyd R. Fernando pled no contest to commercial burglary, grand theft, forgery, obtaining personal identifying information with intent to defraud, and receiving stolen property, with prior serious felony conviction and prior prison term enhancements. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 487, subd. (a), 470, subd. (d), 530.5, subd. (c)(3), 496, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 667.5.)1 These convictions apparently arose out of two different incidents: one on June 20, 2009, in which Fernando passed a forged check at a liquor store, and a second on July 1, 2009, in which Fernando was found in possession of stolen mail and the personal identifying information of 10 or more people. Fernando was sentenced to a prison term of three years and eight months. Following the enactment of Proposition 47, Fernando petitioned on February 24, 2015, to have his felony convictions either resentenced or redesignated as misdemeanors. On June 17, 2015, the trial court denied Fernando’s petition because the loss amount exceeded $950. Fernando timely appealed from the order of denial. We appointed counsel to represent Fernando on appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441. We directed counsel to send the record on appeal and a copy of the opening brief to Fernando, and notified defendant he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. No supplemental brief was filed. We have examined the entire record and determined that Fernando is not eligible for resentencing because he has not shown that the value of the property taken under any of the Proposition 47 eligible counts did not exceed $950. Proposition 47, enacted by voters on November 4, 2014 and effective the following day, reduces certain drug and theft offenses to misdemeanors unless committed by ineligible defendants. (People v. Lynall (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1108.) Proposition 47 provides, in pertinent part: “(a) A person currently serving a sentence for a conviction . . . of a felony . . . who would have been guilty of a misdemeanor under the