People v. Young CA2/8

Filed 7/14/16 P. v. Young CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B265913

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. A919114) v.

NORMAN YOUNG,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Eric C. Taylor, Judge. Affirmed.

Juliana Drous, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Chung Mar and Margaret E. Maxwell, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

*********

SUMMARY In 1987, defendant and appellant Norman Young pled guilty to grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, a felony)1 and was sentenced to one year four months in state prison. In 2015, defendant filed an application to have his felony conviction reclassified as a misdemeanor pursuant to section 1170.18, the remedial provision enacted by Proposition 47 (The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act; hereafter Proposition 47). On appeal, defendant contends the court erred in denying his request for reclassification. We affirm. FACTS By information filed September 8, 1987, defendant was charged with three counts of robbery (§ 211) and one count of grand theft (§ 487). Defendant pled guilty to grand theft. On February 11, 2015, defendant filed, in propria persona, an application to have his felony conviction reclassified as a misdemeanor pursuant to section 1170.18, subdivision (f). On June 8, 2015, the court summarily denied his request, finding, “[t]here is no proof from petitioner as to amount in question.” On July 21, 2015, defendant filed a request for a formal hearing and appointment of counsel. On July 21, 2015, while defendant’s request for a hearing was pending, he served a notice of appeal from the court’s summary denial of his application. On July 23, 2015, the trial court denied his request for a hearing and appointment of counsel, finding that “Robbery (Penal Code 211) on [a] person is not [an] eligible offense under Proposition 47.” Defendant did not file a separate notice of appeal from this latter order. DISCUSSION Defendant contends his notice of appeal should be liberally construed to permit him to appeal both the June 8, 2015 and July 23, 2015 orders of the court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.100(a)(2).) The People contend this appeal is limited to the initial ruling on the reclassification application because defendant failed to identify the latter order