People v. Micheletti CA1/2

Filed 4/26/21 P. v. Micheletti CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A161107 v. ROBERT MICHELETTI, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 19NF012198A) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Robert Micheletti appeals from a judgment entered after he pled no contest to felony grand theft and admitted a strike prior conviction from 1985 as part of a negotiated disposition. Defendant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief asking this court for an independent review of the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant was informed of his right to file supplemental briefing and has not filed such a brief. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and independently reviewed the record, and we find no errors or other issues requiring further briefing. Accordingly, we affirm. On October 16, 2019, defendant was charged by information with felony grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a), count 1),1 felony receiving stolen

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless 1

otherwise stated.

1

property (§ 496, subd. (a), count 2), and misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, count 3). The information also alleged two strike prior convictions from 1985 and 1992, and an allegation that defendant was not eligible for probation. (§§ 667, 1170.12, 1203, subd. (e)(4).) As part of a negotiated disposition, on March 2, 2020, defendant pled no contest to grand theft (count 1) and admitted the 1985 strike prior. Defendant pled to a stipulated maximum sentence of 32 months, open to the consideration of a Romero2 motion to strike the 1985 strike prior. In exchange, the district attorney dismissed the remaining counts and allegations of the information, and a separate pending case was dismissed subject to a Harvey3 waiver for possible restitution. According to the probation report, the current charges arose when a JCPenney loss prevention officer saw defendant leave the store on September 21, 2019, without paying for numerous articles of men’s clothing. Defendant drove off but was soon stopped by police officers, who searched his car and found 10 jackets from JCPenney, valued at $1,055, and 10 jackets, four purses, and two other items from Nordstrom valued at $3,969. Defendant also possessed drug paraphernalia. Defendant completed a change of plea form that advised him of his rights and the rights he was waiving; the forms were signed by his counsel and by the court. Defense counsel and the prosecutor stipulated to a factual basis for the no contest plea. The court found defendant knowingly,