People v. Farias CA5

California Court of Appeal Sep 12, 2016 No. F072032Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that Proposition 47 does not automatically reduce felony convictions to misdemeanors and that a defendant must first file a petition for recall of sentence in the trial court to seek such relief.

Issues

Whether Proposition 47 automatically applies to reduce felony convictions to misdemeanors at a probation revocation hearing.
Whether the appellate court can determine if offenses qualify for Proposition 47 relief in the first instance.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Proposition 47 does not automatically reduce the two felony convictions to misdemeanors.”

“The sole remedy available to Farias is to file an application in the trial court pursuant to section 1170.18 for recall of sentence and resentencing.”

“Section 1170.18 simply does not permit this court to grant relief in the first instance, or the trial court to grant relief in the absence of a section 1170.18 petition.”

Filed 9/12/16 P. v. Farias 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F072032 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. F14901100 & v. F14903350)

STEPHANIE ASHLEY FARIAS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Timothy A. Kams, Judge. S. Lynne Klein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman and Raymond L. Brosterhous II, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Franson, J.

INTRODUCTION As part of a plea bargain, on May 13, 2014, appellant Stephanie Ashley Farias pled to four felony counts and a misdemeanor, with a three-year sentencing “lid” and no initial state prison term. Farias was placed on felony probation, which eventually was revoked on June 2, 2015, and the trial court imposed a term of incarceration. Farias asserts the trial court erred in imposing a felony sentence on two counts, receiving stolen property and unlawful acquisition of credit card information, because Proposition 47 sentencing applies and there is insufficient evidence the offenses involved a value of over $950. We conclude the trial court did not err and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On January 31, 2014, a felony complaint was filed as case No. F14901100, charging Farias in counts 1 and 2 with identity theft with a prior conviction (Pen. Code,1 § 530.5, subd. (c)(2)); count 3 charged unlawful acquisition of credit card information (§ 484e, subd. (d)); count 4 charged receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)); and in count 5 with forgery (§ 475, subd. (b)). It also was alleged as to count 1, that Farias committed the offense while on bail or own recognizance release status in violation of section 12022.1. Farias failed to appear for arraignment and a bench warrant was issued on February 26, 2014. On April 14, 2014, Farias was returned to the jurisdiction of the court and remanded into custody. On April 14, 2014, another complaint was filed against Farias and co-defendants as case No. F14903350. Farias was charged in count 3 of this complaint with possession of a deadly or dangerous weapon, specifically a sawed-off shotgun, in violation of section

People v. Farias CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief