California Court of Appeal Jul 7, 2016 No. E063660Unpublished
Filed 7/6/16 P. v. Jauregui 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E063660
v. (Super.Ct.No. FVI800930)
JASON JAUREGUI, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Smith,
Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Richard Schwartzberg, 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, Barry Carlton, and Karl T. Terp,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
I
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Jason Jauregui appeals an order denying his petition for resentencing
under Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.18,
Defendant argues his commercial burglary convictions (counts 1, 9, and 15)
qualify under section 459.5 as misdemeanor shoplifting offenses, and his section 470b
conviction for possession of a forged driver’s license (count 16) qualifies as misdemeanor
forgery under section 473, subdivision (b). Defendant asserts that the restitution memo
establishes that the value of the property at issue in counts 1, 9, 15, and 16 does not
exceed $950. Defendant correctly notes that the $28,000 restitution award did not
involve the crimes charged in counts 1, 9, 15, and 16, and therefore did not disqualify
those counts from resentencing. Nevertheless, defendant has not met his burden of
proving that the value of the property at issue in counts 1, 9, 15, and 16 did not exceed
$950. Defendant did not present any supporting evidence and the record of conviction,
including the restitution memo, does not establish the value of the property at issue in any
of these counts.
6
There are several other reasons why defendant cannot prevail on his appeal of the
trial court’s ruling on April 3, 2015, denying his resentencing petition. The record on
appeal does not include defendant’s second petition for resentencing, which is the subject
of this appeal. Defendant did not appeal the trial court’s denial on January 9, 2015, of his
first petition for resentencing. The instant appeal was filed in May 2015, and appeals the
April 3, 2015 ruling. There is a document, entitled “petition for writ of habeas corpus,”
which is similar to defendant’s original petition for resentencing (also entitled “petition
for writ of habeas corpus”) but the document is dated signed on April 27, 2015, and was
filed on May 11, 2016, well after the April 3, 2015 hearing. Furthermore, the trial court,
as well as this court, deemed the April 27, 2015 document a notice of appeal of the April
3, 2015 ruling denying resentencing.
Even assuming the April 27, 2015, document was submitted before the April 3,
2015 hearing, and the trial court deemed it a resentencing petition and denied it during
the April 3, 2015 hearing, the April 27, 2015 document does not request resentencing as
to counts 1, 9, 15, or 16. It only requests resentencing as to counts 2 and 10.
Furthermore, defendant’s appeal does not challenge the trial court’s ruling on counts 2 or
10.
Another significant problem with defendant’s appeal is that the record on appeal
indicates that defendant never pled guilty or was convicted of counts 15 and 16.
Therefore, there is no basis for resentencing as to those counts.
Defendant has not established that the trial court abused its discretion on April 3,
2015, when it denied defendant’s petition for resentencing.
7
V
DISPOSITION
The order on April 3, 2015, denying defendant’s petition for resentencing is
affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON J.
We concur:
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
MILLER J.
8
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 defendant failed to meet his burden of proving the value of the property involved did not exceed $950, and the record did not support his claims regarding his convictions.
Issues
Did the trial court err in denying the defendant's petition for resentencing under Proposition 47?
Did the defendant meet his burden of proof to establish the value of the property at issue did not exceed $950?
Was there a factual basis in the record for the defendant's claims regarding his convictions for counts 15 and 16?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“defendant has not met his burden of establishing that the value of the property at issue in each count does not exceed $950.”
“the record on appeal does not show defendant pled guilty or was convicted as to counts 15 and 16.”
“defendant’s petition for resentencing does not seek any relief or resentencing as to counts 1, 9, 15 or 16.”