People v. Shelton CA2/4

Filed 7/20/21 P. v. Shelton CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B305679

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA344533) v.

DWIGHT ROLLAND SHELTON, JR.

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robert J. Perry, Judge. Dismissed. Nancy Tetreault, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2009, appellant Dwight Rolland Shelton was convicted of more than 50 felony counts stemming from his participation in fraudulent real estate transactions; the crimes included making false financial statements (Pen. Code, § 532a, subd. (1))1, grand theft of personal property (§ 487, subd. (a)), forgery (§ 470, subd. (a)), offering a false or forged instrument for filing (§ 115, subd. (a)), identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (a)), attempted grand theft of personal property (§§ 487, subd. (a), 664), and conspiracy to commit a crime (§ 182, subd. (a)(1)). In connection with specified counts, the jury also found that the value of the property involved exceeded $150,000 (former § 12022.6, subd. (a)(2)), that the loss exceeded $100,000 (§ 115, subd. (c)), and that the pattern of related felony conduct involved the taking of more than $500,000 (§ 186.11, subd. (a)(2)). The trial court sentenced appellant to an aggregate determinate prison term of 29 years, four months. We affirmed his convictions and ordered errors in his abstract of judgment corrected in 2012. (People v. Shelton (Apr. 10, 2012, Nos. B222428 & B225438) [nonpub. opn.].) On December 17, 2019, appellant filed a “Motion for Relief Under Proposition 36, 47 and 57 Base [sic] on Non-Violent Committed Offense(s) Individual Value of Theft is Less than 950 Dollars.” Appellant contended he was entitled to relief under Proposition 36 because the trial court had “imposed 4 years 4 month [sic] for the actual criminal act of grand theft, and imposed a 25 years to life under the three strikes law,” which was improper under Proposition 36 because his crimes were not violent. He argued that he was entitled to relief under Proposition 47 because each of his individual acts of theft involved less than $950. Appellant also argued that he was