People v. Mooregrant CA3

Filed 6/21/16 P. v. Mooregrant CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ----

THE PEOPLE, C078621

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62117805)

v.

JASMINE CHIMERE MOOREGRANT,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Jasmine Chimere Mooregrant appeals from the trial court’s orders finding her second degree burglary conviction ineligible for Penal Code section 1170.18 resentencing. 1 She contends that the record of her conviction establishes that she committed the crime of shoplifting, rendering her eligible for resentencing. (§ 459.5.) Finding that defendant failed to carry her burden of establishing that the amount of property in question did not exceed $950 in value, we affirm the trial court’s orders.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

I. BACKGROUND Defendant pleaded no contest to felony identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (a)) and second degree burglary (§ 459). The factual basis of the plea was provided by the prosecutor as follows: “On or about April 17th through April 18th, 2012, the victim’s personal credit card was stolen. The [d]efendant had possession of the victim’s credit card and used that information to try to obtain cash from an ATM inside Thunder Valley Casino. She did enter Thunder Valley Casino with the intent of committing thefts therein on or about April 18th, 2012.” The trial court sentenced defendant to one year six months in this case (one-third the middle term of eight months on both counts), and sentenced her in two separate cases from Sacramento County (case Nos. 12F02700, 12F03160) for an aggregate term of seven years in state prison. On December 15, 2014, defendant filed a section 1170.18 petition for resentencing on her second degree burglary conviction in this case. The trial court denied the petition. II. DISCUSSION Defendant contends she was eligible for resentencing on her second degree burglary conviction. We disagree. The passage of Proposition 47 created section 1170.18, which provides any defendant “currently serving a sentence for a conviction . . . of a felony or felonies who would have been guilty of a misdemeanor under [Proposition 47] had [it] been in effect at the time of the offense may petition for a recall of sentence before the trial court that entered the judgment of conviction in his or her case to request resentencing” under the statutory framework as amended by the passage of Proposition 47. (§ 1170.18, subd. (a); see Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2014) text of Prop. 47, § 14, pp. 73-74.) As pertinent to this case, Proposition 47 added section 459.5, which establishes the offense of shoplifting, a misdemeanor, which is defined as “entering a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny while that establishment is open during