People v. Tegeda CA3

Filed 11/15/23 P. v. Tegeda CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C098130

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20FE014090)

v.

PEDRO VASQUES TEGEDA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Pedro Vasques Tegeda appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18.1 Appointed counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), requesting we exercise our discretion to review the entire record for arguable issues on appeal. Defendant filed a supplemental brief. We shall affirm.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

BACKGROUND On May 18, 2022, defendant pleaded no contest in two cases to vehicle theft and second degree robbery, admitting a prior strike in both cases and to personally using a deadly weapon for the robbery conviction. The stipulated facts for defendant’s plea for the first case were that defendant robbed a liquor store with a knife, threatening to kill the store clerk in the process. For the second case, defendant unlawfully drove and took a car valued at over $950 without consent and to permanently deprive the owner possession of that car. That same day the trial court sentenced defendant to the stipulated term of six years four months comprised of four years for robbery, 16 months for vehicle theft, and one year for the weapon enhancement. In November 2022, defendant filed a motion to reduce his vehicle theft conviction to a misdemeanor. On January 4, 2023, the trial court denied the petition by written order finding there was “[n]o showing of value less than $950.” Defendant appealed on February 17, 2023. DISCUSSION We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant filed a supplemental brief asking for a “Prop[osition] 47 misdemeanor rule petition” and stating, “They denied my Prop[osition] 47 because there wasn’t proof of the price of the pick-up. I didn’t steal it I went for a joyride.” We interpret this argument as challenging the trial court’s denial of his petition; we find no error here. Following Proposition 47’s enactment on November 5, 2014, the crime of receiving stolen property is a misdemeanor if the value of the stolen property received does not exceed $950. (§ 496, subd. (a).) Defendant here pleaded to facts establishing theft of