People v. Leyva CA4/3

Filed 8/19/16 P. v. Leyva CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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). The opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G051525

v. (Superior Court Nos. 12NF0574, 14NF1396) ANDRES ISAIAH LEYVA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Thomas A. Glazier, Judge. Affirmed. Robert L.S. Angres, 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, A. Natasha Cortina and Kristen Kinnaird Chenelia, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Andres Isaiah Leyva pleaded guilty to several felony counts of grand theft under Penal Code section 484e, subdivisions (a) and (d) (all statutory references are to Penal Code unless otherwise designated). Leyva contends the trial court erred by denying his petition to have the convictions reduced to misdemeanors under Proposition 47 (§ 1170.18). For the reasons expressed below, we affirm. I FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In August 2012, Leyva waived his rights and pleaded guilty (OC case No. 12NF0574) to three counts of unlawfully selling, transferring or conveying an access card (§ 484e, subd. (a) [counts 3, 12, 22]) and two counts of vehicle taking (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a) [counts 9, 19]). On the counts involving an access card, Leyva provided the following factual basis: “On [October 6, 7 and 11], 2011[,] I did use an access card without consent of the card owner with the intent to defraud.” He also admitted suffering a prior conviction within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). Leyva agreed to a split sentence of three years in custody and three years of mandatory supervision. In October 2013, Leyva admitted violating the terms of his mandatory supervision, and the trial court imposed 115 days in custody to run concurrently with a term imposed in another case (OC case No. 11NF3104). Leyva’s probation officer filed a second violation petition in January 2014 based on a December 2013 arrest for driving while intoxicated and with a suspended license (Veh. Code, §§ 23152, subd. (a), 14601.1, subd. (a)). In April 2014, Leyva waived his rights and pleaded guilty (OC case No. 14NF1396) to one count of unlawfully acquiring or retaining possession of access card information (§ 484e, subd. (d)). He also admitted suffering two prior convictions within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). Leyva provided the following factual basis: “On [March 24, 2014], I willfully, unlawfully, [and] knowingly acquired [and]