People v. Thiessen CA5

Filed 8/30/16 P. v. Thiessen CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F071486 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. VCF256972A) v.

CURTIS RAY THIESSEN, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Gary L. Paden, Judge. Carol Foster, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Smith, J.

Appointed counsel for defendant Curtis Ray Thiessen asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case. Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. We reverse the trial court’s order denying defendant’s petition for resentencing pursuant to Proposition 47 (Pen. Code § 1170.18),1 and we remand for further proceedings. We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.) According to an amended copy of the abstract of judgment, on May 11, 2012, defendant pled to eight counts: three counts of vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851), three counts of receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)), and two counts of reckless driving while evading a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2). On June 14, 2012, the trial court sentenced defendant to eight years in prison: four years on one count of vehicle theft, three-year concurrent terms on each remaining count of vehicle theft and receiving stolen property, two-year concurrent terms on the evading counts, plus four years in prior prison term enhancements. On December 4, 2014, defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (§ 1170.18), requesting that the court reduce to misdemeanors his felony convictions for vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851) and receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)). On February 9, 2015, the trial court denied the petition for resentencing because defendant’s convictions did not qualify for resentencing under Proposition 47. On April 9, 2015, defendant filed a notice of appeal.