People v. Quezada CA6

Filed 7/6/16 P. v. Quezada CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H041174 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1115723)

v.

ANTHONY QUEZADA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Anthony Quezada appeals following his conviction for second degree robbery (Pen. Code §§ 211-212.5, subd. (c)).1 On appeal, defendant asserts that his prior 1987 assault with a deadly weapon conviction (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) cannot be considered a prior strike or a prior serious felony for the purpose of this case, because the court’s imposition of informal probation in that case operated to convert the crime to a misdemeanor (§§ 1170.12; 667(a)-(b)).2

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 Defendant argued in his opening brief that his 2001 prior conviction for assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) could not be used to enhance his sentence as a prior prison term under section 667.5, subdivision (b), because the subsequent 2008 conviction for grand theft was reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 17. Therefore, according to defendant, the two requirements for a prison prior that there be a conviction for a felony and a subsequent felony are not present in this case. The attorney general argued that despite the fact that the 2008 conviction was reduced to a misdemeanor, defendant did not remain free from custody for a five-year

STATEMENT OF THE CASE3 In January 2012, defendant was charged by information with second degree robbery (§§ 211-212.5, subd. (c).) The information also alleged that defendant personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon during the commission of the robbery. (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1).) In addition, the information alleged that defendant had suffered two prior strike convictions, (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). One of the alleged strikes was a prior juvenile adjudication for murder (§ 187), and the other was a 1987 conviction for assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). The information also alleged that the prior 1987 conviction for assault qualified as a serious felony under section 667, subdivision (a). Finally, the information alleged that defendant had served a prior prison term for a conviction of assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury. (§ 667.5, subd. b).) The case proceeded to jury trial in March 2014. Defendant was found guilty as charged. After a bench trial, the court found sufficient evidence that appellant had suffered three prior convictions, but found insufficient evidence of an alleged juvenile adjudication. The court denied defendant’s Romero4 motion, and sentenced defendant to a total of 17 years in state prison. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal in June 2014. DISCUSSION Defendant asserts on appeal that the imposition of informal probation on his 1987 conviction for assault with a deadly weapon automatically converted the offense to a