People v. Harmon CA2/2

Filed 5/13/21 P. v. Harmon CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B308766

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA071371) v.

GERJUAN DESHON HARMON,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT: Gerjuan Deshon Harmon (defendant) filed a petition for 1 resentencing under Proposition 47 (Pen. Code, § 1170.18) seeking to reclassify his 2013 felony conviction for unlawful

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

taking or driving of a motor vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) as a misdemeanor. The trial court denied his petition, finding that he was ineligible for relief because the $300,000 Bentley he drove away and crashed into a pole was worth more than $950 (before it was crashed into a pole). Defendant appealed, and his appointed counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 (Serrano), indicating that his review of the entire record revealed no “arguable issues to raise on appeal.” Because defendant availed himself of his right to file a supplemental brief, we will review the arguments he raises. (People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1040 (Cole), review granted Oct. 14, 2020, S264278.) As explained below, these arguments are meritless, not properly before us, or both. Accordingly, we affirm. In his supplemental brief, defendant raises four arguments. His first two arguments are the only arguments properly before us, as they are the only ones pertaining to the order he appealed that denied him relief under Proposition 47. Defendant urges that the trial court erred in not reducing his felony Vehicle Code section 10851 conviction to a misdemeanor. In People v. Page (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1175, 1187, our Supreme Court held that Proposition 47 mandates the reduction of a felony conviction for unlawful taking of a vehicle under Vehicle Code section 10851 to a misdemeanor if the vehicle taken was worth less than $950. This does not aid defendant because (1) the jury’s acquittal of the charge of grand theft auto (§ 487) of the Bentley necessarily means that its guilty verdict for unlawful taking or driving a vehicle rests on driving, and (2) even if we ignore the jury’s findings, the sole evidence at trial was that the Bentley he took was worth $300,000, which is more than 315