People v. Pierce CA4/3

Filed 9/26/16 P. v. Pierce 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G052175

v. (Super. Ct. No. 09SF0912)

MATTHEW WARD PIERCE, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gassia Apkarian, Judge. Affirmed. Jared G. Coleman, 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, Charles C. Ragland, Allison Hawley and Marvin E. Mizell, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Matthew Ward Pierce appeals from the order denying his petition to have his conviction for grand theft reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to Penal Code section 1 1170.18. Pierce argues the trial court erred by placing the burden on him to demonstrate his conviction was for theft of property that did not exceed $950 in value. We disagree. The general rule is that the party seeking relief from the court has the burden of proving eligibility or entitlement to such relief, and in this case it is Pierce who is seeking relief under section 1170.18. Nothing in either the language of the statute or the case law relied upon by Pierce suggests it is exempt from that general rule. The order is affirmed. I FACTS

In September 2009, Pierce was working for a moving company at a home in San Clemente. The homeowner told the movers not to enter her master bedroom and master bathroom. However, she later saw Pierce walking out of her master bedroom, and soon discovered a ring was missing from the purse she had left in the master bathroom. In October 2009, the Orange County District Attorney filed a felony complaint against Pierce, charging him with one count of grand theft of property valued at over $400 (§ 487, subd. (a)) and one count of receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)). The complaint also alleged he had previously suffered two or more serious and violent felony convictions. A preliminary hearing was held in December 2009, and the sole witness was an Orange County deputy sheriff. The deputy testified as to the circumstances of the crime, based in part on the statements of the victim. According to the deputy, the victim valued the ring stolen by Pierce at $8,000.