People v. Samra CA3

Filed 8/26/22 P. v. Samra CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Plumas) ----

THE PEOPLE, C094211

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 3049)

v.

STEVEN KEZMA SAMRA,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 1997, defendant Steven Kezma Samra was convicted of using a minor to sell marijuana. In March 2021, the trial court ruled defendant was ineligible for red esignation of that felony offense as a misdemeanor. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred. We affirm.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We take our summary of many of the relevant facts from this court’s 2018 opinion in defendant’s prior appeal. (People v. Samra (Mar. 22, 2018, C084122 & C084726) [nonpub. opn.] (Samra).) In 1997, and pursuant to a written plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to cultivation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11358)1 and using a minor to sell marijuana (§ 11361, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to 16 months in state prison on the cultivation of marijuana conviction. The court sentenced defendant to the lower term of three years on the using a minor to sell marijuana conviction but stayed execution of sentence pending defendant’s successful completion of the 16-month prison term. In November 2016, voters passed the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (Proposition 64). One aspect of Proposition 64 is it permits those convicted of marijuana-related felonies to apply to have their convictions redesignated as misdemeanors. (People v. Laird (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 458, 463.) After passage of Proposition 64, “[d]efendant filed two separate motions seeking redesignation and dismissal of his 1997 felony convictions.” (Samra, supra, C084122 & C084726 [at p. 3].) “The trial court denied defendant’s motion [regarding the use of a minor to sell marijuana conviction], finding that defendant was convicted of an offense . . . that was not eligible for the relief requested by defendant.” (Ibid.) Affirming the trial court’s ruling, a panel of this court explained: Section 11361, subdivision (a) “was not amended by the enactment of Proposition 64. . . . Although Proposition 64 amended [other] provisions of the Health and Safety Code, defendant was not convicted of violating [those amended provisions]. Rather, he was convicted of