People v. Garcia CA3

Filed 3/16/21 P. v. Garcia CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C092004

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 08F11)

v.

ARMANDO JOSEPH GARCIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Armando Joseph Garcia appeals from the trial court’s denial of his second Proposition 47 petition (Pen. Code,1 § 1170.18) for resentencing on his conviction for receiving stolen property, after we reversed an earlier denial of the second petition, and remanded for additional proceedings, because defendant had set forth a prima facie case for relief. (People v. Garcia (Apr. 16, 2019, C087807) [nonpub. opn.] (Garcia III).)

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

Defendant contends the trial court erred in ruling he did not meet his burden of establishing the stolen items he received had a value that did not exceed $950. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We take the facts of defendant’s crime and the relevant proceedings of his conviction from our three prior opinions in this case. (See People v. Woodell (1998) 17 Cal.4th 448, 451 [the record of conviction includes an appellate opinion disposing of the appeal in the case].) “ ‘Acting as a lookout in a residential burglary, defendant received a camera, cell phone, rifle, television, and jewelry taken during the burglary.’ ” (Garcia III, supra, C087807 at p. 2.) A February 2008 information alleged defendant received stolen property “[o]n or about” December 30, 2007. Defendant “pled guilty to receiving stolen property and admitted prior strikes with a stipulated sentence of 25 years to life.” (Garcia III, at p. 2.) Defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to the resentencing provision of Proposition 47, section 1170.18. (Garcia III, supra, C087807 at p. 3.) In defendant’s appeal from the denial of his first Proposition 47 petition, we ruled “the trial court erred in holding defendant was limited to the record of conviction to prove his eligibility for relief,” and “ ‘affirmed without prejudice to defendant filing a successive petition that supplies evidence of his eligibility for resentencing.’ ” (Garcia III, supra, C087807 at p. 4.) Defendant filed a successive petition, attaching to it “a declaration . . . in which he stated, with reasons for each, that the value of the television was $100 to $125, the camera was $60 to $70, the jewelry consisted of $16 in necklaces, $9 in bracelets, $12 in snap-on earrings, $30 in silver earrings, $150 for a diamond wedding band, the rifle at $150, and the cell phone was worth no more than $100, for a total of $662.” (Garcia III, supra, C087807 at p. 5.) The prosecution filed a response, “asserting the actual value of