California Court of Appeal Aug 5, 2016 No. E065870Unpublished
Filed 8/5/16 P. v. Lyles 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E065870
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF112847)
DIEGO JORDAN LYLES, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky Dugan, Judge.
Affirmed.
Christine M. Aros, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Diego Jordan Lyles appeals from an order denying his
petition to reduce his conviction for unlawfully possessing a vehicle valued over $400
1
(Pen. Code, § 503)1 to a misdemeanor under section 1170.18, enacted as part of
Proposition 47. We find no error and will affirm the order.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In October 2003, defendant rented a 2003 Ford Mustang from American Cars,
to wit, a checkbook (§496, subd. (a); count 3); passing or possessing a check with the
intent to defraud (§ 476; count 4); and possession of a drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf.
Code, § 11364; count 5).
On October 29, 2003, defendant pleaded guilty to count 1. In return, the
remaining counts were dismissed and defendant was placed on formal probation for a
period of three years on various terms and conditions, including serving 365 days in
county jail.
On May 8, 2006, the trial court found defendant violated probation and sentenced
him to two years in state prison with credit for time served.
1 All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
2
On November 4, 2014, voters enacted Proposition 47, entitled “the Safe
Neighborhoods and Schools Act” (hereafter Proposition 47). It went into effect the next
day. (Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (a).) As of its effective date, Proposition 47
classifies as misdemeanors certain drug- and theft-related offenses that previously were
felonies or “wobblers,” unless they were committed by certain ineligible defendants.
(§ 1170.18, subd. (a).) Among the crimes reduced to misdemeanors by Proposition 47,
rendering the person convicted of the crime eligible for resentencing, is receiving stolen
property where the property value does not exceed $950. (§ 496, subd. (a).)
Proposition 47 also included a provision that allows certain offenders to seek
resentencing. Defendants who are serving a sentence, or who have completed a sentence,
for a felony that would have been a misdemeanor had Proposition 47 been in effect at the
time of the offense may file a petition for recall of sentence. (§ 1170.18.)
On June 25, 2015, defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to
section 1170.18. On January 8, 2016, the People filed a response, stating that defendant
was not qualified for relief because the value of the vehicle was over $950.
A hearing on defendant’s petition was held on March 11, 2016. At that time,
defendant’s counsel noted that the vehicle was a rental car that was reported stolen. The
prosecutor argued that in order to qualify under Proposition 47, it would have to be a
theft and it was the prosecution’s position that defendant did not have an intent to return
the car. In the alternative, the prosecutor noted that defendant’s offense would not
qualify anyway because it was a 2003 Ford Mustang, taken in 2003, and therefore, the
3
value was going to be over $950. The trial court replied that it was looking at the loss to
the rental agency and believed that it would still be over $950, but it did not know how
long defendant had the car. Defense counsel submitted that it was 52 days between the
time the car was reported stolen and defendant’s apprehension. The court concluded that
the value was easily over $950 and denied the petition based on the value and because it
was a theft of a car.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal on April 14, 2016. On May 2, 2016,
defendant filed an amended notice of appeal.
II
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to
represent him on appeal. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a
statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and
requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he
has not done so.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error
that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
4
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ P. J. We concur:
HOLLENHORST J.
CODRINGTON J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's petition for resentencing under Proposition 47, finding no arguable error after an independent review of the record.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18.
Disposition. Affirmed.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We find no error and will affirm the order.”
“Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.”