People v. Lorenzo CA3

Filed 8/18/20 P. v. Lorenzo CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C091195

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 13F00743)

v.

ELISIO ATENIA LORENZO,

Defendant and Appellant.

In September 2013, after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence, defendant pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale and transportation of methamphetamine. In October 2013, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on formal probation for five years.

1

In December 2013, the trial court transferred the case to San Diego County, pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.9.1 Defendant fulfilled the conditions of probation, and in April 2019, the superior court in San Diego granted defendant’s petition to set aside his conviction and enter a not guilty plea pursuant to section 1203.4. In August 2019, defendant filed a motion in Sacramento County to reduce his convictions to misdemeanors pursuant to section 17, subdivision (b). The trial court denied the motion on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction because the case had been transferred to San Diego. Defendant timely appealed without a certificate of probable cause. DISCUSSION We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that this court review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant filed a supplemental brief, arguing: (1) the trial court should have granted his motion to reduce his felonies, pursuant to section 17, subdivision (b)(3); and (2) in the “alternative,” we should grant “a writ of mandamus to vacate the conviction and compel the trial court to grant the motion to suppress” due to “a questionable pat down.”