People v. Santana CA2/1

Filed 9/16/21 P. v. Santana CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B309365

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA158761) v.

DEMECIO SANTANA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Craig E. Veals, Judge. Affirmed. Kirstin M. Ault, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________

Defendant Demecio Santana appeals from an order summarily denying his application to redesignate a robbery conviction as a misdemeanor offense pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1170.18. Because robbery cannot be redesignated as a misdemeanor, we affirm.

BACKGROUND In December 1997, the People charged defendant in a one-count information with second degree robbery in violation of section 211, alleging that defendant took personal property by means of force and fear. The People further alleged that the robbery was a felony. In January 1998, defendant pleaded guilty to count 1. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence, placed defendant on formal probation, and required him to serve 365 days in county jail. The court warned defendant, “If you violate your probation in this case, the court can sentence you either to two years, three years or five years in state prison.” On July 30, 2020, defendant filed an application for resentencing of the 1998 robbery conviction pursuant to section 1170.18, a statute added by Proposition 47. Defendant stated that he was convicted in 1998 of second degree robbery. Defendant described the offense as “ ‘purse snatching.’ ” The People opposed the petition on the ground that defendant’s robbery conviction does not qualify for Proposition 47 relief. The trial court summarily denied defendant’s application for resentencing. After an examination of the record, appellate counsel filed an opening brief which raised no issues and requested this court