People v. Peniaranda-Balderas CA3

Filed 8/28/20 P. v. Peniaranda-Balderas CA3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C087085

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 17CF06046)

v. OPINION ON TRANSFER

ARTHUR KEITH PENIARANDA-BALDERAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Arthur Keith Peniaranda-Balderas filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We shall conditionally reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings under Penal Code section 1001.36; unless otherwise stated, statutory section

1

references that follow are to the Penal Code. In all other respects, we shall affirm the judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 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.) Defendant entered the victims’ home through an unlocked door while they were asleep inside. He stole the victims’ keys and electronics and then used the keys to steal their car. He was later stopped by law enforcement for his erratic driving and claimed he stole the car because he needed money. The People charged defendant with first degree burglary, alleging people were present at the time of the burglary. (§§ 459, 667.5, subd. (c).) The People also alleged defendant was previously convicted of two strike offenses. (§§ 667, subd. (d), 1170.12, subd. (b).) Defendant pleaded no contest to burglary, admitted a person was present during the burglary, and admitted to a prior strike conviction. In exchange for defendant’s plea, the People moved the court to strike the allegation that defendant was convicted of a second strike offense. The court granted the People’s motion. The trial court subsequently sentenced defendant to the upper term of six years in state prison, doubled for the prior strike offense. (§ 461, subd. (a) [first degree burglary punishable by two, four, or six years in state prison].) The court also resentenced defendant for his conviction in Tehama County Superior Court case No. 17CR001625: two years for receiving stolen property (§ 496d, subd. (a)), and two additional years for enhancement allegations under section 667.5, subdivision (b). The court ordered those to be served concurrent to defendant’s 12-year prison sentence in the current case. The court then ordered defendant to pay the following fines and fees: a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4); a $300 parole revocation fine, which was stayed (§ 1202.45); a