People v. Renk CA4/3

Filed 8/24/16 P. v. Renk 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G051671

v. (Super. Ct. No. 04WF1276)

MICHAEL JASON RENK, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Thomas A. Glazier, Judge. Affirmed. Jan B. Norman, 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, Scott C. Taylor and Kristen Kinnaird Chenelia, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

INTRODUCTION Defendant Michael Jason Renk appeals from an order denying his petition under Penal Code section 1170.18, subdivision (f) for, inter alia, the reduction of his felony convictions for forgery and second degree commercial burglary to misdemeanors. (All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.) We affirm the order because Renk failed to carry his burden of establishing eligibility for relief under Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (§ 1170.18), by producing evidence that the value of the check that he forged or the property that he had intended to steal in the commission of the second degree commercial burglary did not exceed $950. BACKGROUND In May 2004, Renk was charged in a felony complaint with three felony counts of forgery in violation of section 470, subdivision (d); three felony counts of second degree commercial burglary in violation of sections 459 and 460, subdivision (b); and one misdemeanor count of resisting and obstructing an officer in violation of section 148, subdivision (a)(1). He pleaded guilty as charged, stating the following as the factual basis for his plea: “On 5/4/04 I willfully & unlawfully did the following acts: [¶] (1) passed a counterfeit check knowing it was forged & [¶] (2) entered Cash Plus, a commercial building, with the intent to commit larceny & [¶] (3) I resisted & obstructed Officer Shroyer, a peace officer, in the performance of his duties. [¶] On 5/3/04, I willfully & unlawfully did the following acts: [¶] (1) enter[ed] Low’s Liquor, a commercial building, with the intent to commit larceny AND (2) passed a counterfeit check, knowing it was false AND (3) enter[ed] Low[’s] Liquor with the intent to commit larceny & [¶] (4) passed a counterfeit check knowing it was forged.” The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Renk on three years’ formal probation on terms and conditions including that he serve 210 days in the Orange County jail. In 2006, Renk’s probation was revoked and he was sentenced to 16 months in prison.