People v. Madrid CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a postjudgment order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE208140
- Trial judge
- David J. Danielsen
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Judith D. McConnell (author), O'Rourke, Gilbert Nares
Analysis
The trial court denied Madrid's petition to reduce his vehicle burglary conviction from a felony to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47, finding the offense ineligible for resentencing. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and finding no reasonably arguable issues of error.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18 (Proposition 47)“The court denied the petition, finding a vehicle burglary conviction is not eligible for resentencing under Proposition 47.” | unclear | correct | agree with court agree with court |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues and the court to independently review the record for error when counsel finds no arguable issues.
- relied: Anders v. California (1976) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from an appeal by filing a brief identifying potential issues for the court's independent review.
- relied: People v. Acosta (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 521 — Vehicle burglary is not included in the list of offenses reduced to misdemeanors by Proposition 47 and does not qualify as petty theft or shoplifting.
The appellate opinion: sound — sound
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court denied Mario Richard Madrid's Penal Code section 1170.18 (Proposition 47) petition to reduce his 2000 felony vehicle burglary conviction to a misdemeanor, finding vehicle burglary is not an eligible offense. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Madrid filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of Proposition 47 petition on the ground that vehicle burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) is not an offense eligible for reduction under Penal Code section 1170.18“The court denied the petition, finding a vehicle burglary conviction is not eligible for resentencing under Proposition 47.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Proposition 47 lists specific offenses (including new sections 459.5 shoplifting and 490.2 petty theft) and vehicle burglary under section 459 is not among them. People v. Acosta (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 521, which the court cites, squarely held vehicle burglary does not qualify as shoplifting or petty theft and that equal protection does not compel the same treatment as vehicle theft. The only issue counsel flagged (analogy to shoplifting) is foreclosed by Acosta on this record, and the facts in the probation report (breaking into a vehicle and removing a bag of books) do not involve entry into a commercial establishment. The Wende procedure was properly followed: counsel identified a possible issue, the defendant was invited to file a supplemental brief and did not, and the court independently reviewed the record. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for error before affirming.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal without merit may file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal; the opinion gives the date as 1976, but Anders was decided in 1967.
- relied: People v. Acosta (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 521 — Vehicle burglary is not among the offenses Proposition 47 reduced to misdemeanors, does not qualify as petty theft under section 490.2 or shoplifting under section 459.5, and equal protection does not require it to be treated like vehicle theft.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the Wende procedure and identifies the one controlling published authority, People v. Acosta, which disposes of the only arguable issue counsel raised. It is brief and does not independently analyze the statutory text or the fact that Madrid had long since completed his sentence (making section 1170.18, subdivision (f) redesignation rather than resentencing the relevant provision), but nothing in the record suggests a different result; the only blemish is the misdated citation to Anders.
Opinion
Filed 7/15/16 P. v. Madrid CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN 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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D069317
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE208140)
MARIO RICHARD MADRID,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David J. Danielsen, Judge. Affirmed.
Gary V. Crooks, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
In 2000, Mario Richard Madrid pleaded guilty to second degree burglary of a vehicle (Pen. Code, § 459) and admitted having a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). The trial court sentenced him to a stipulated sentence of two years and eight months in prison.
In 2015, Madrid filed a petition under Penal Code section 1170.18, which was enacted as part of the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (Proposition 47), to reduce his vehicle burglary conviction from a felony to a misdemeanor. (See Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2014) text of Prop. 47, § 1, p. 70.) The court denied the petition, finding a vehicle burglary conviction is not eligible for resentencing under Proposition 47.
Madrid appeals. His appointed appellate counsel filed a brief requesting we independently review the record for error. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442.) Having done so and having identified no reasonably arguable appellate issues, we affirm the order.
BACKGROUND
There is no transcript of Madrid's guilty plea or sentencing hearing. A 2005 probation report described the relevant facts underlying Madrid's vehicle burglary conviction as follows: "A witness saw the defendant and a male companion break into a vehicle and remove property from it. The witness followed the men's vehicle and directed the police to [its] location. Police officers conducted a felony hot stop of the vehicle and detained the defendant and his companion. … A green bag containing books[,] which the victim subsequently identified as his property, was found in the vehicle driven by the defendant's companion."
2 DISCUSSION
Madrid's appointed appellate counsel filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presented no argument for reversal and instead requested we review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pages 441-442.
To aid our review, and consistent with Anders v. California (1976) 386 U.S. 738, 744, counsel identified one possible appellate issue: whether Proposition 47's resentencing provisions apply to Madrid's vehicle burglary conviction because vehicle burglary is analogous to shoplifting. (But see People v. Acosta (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 521, 526-528 [vehicle burglary and attempted vehicle burglary are not included in the list of offenses Proposition 47 reduced to misdemeanors; vehicle burglary does not qualify as petty theft under Pen. Code, § 490.2; vehicle burglary does not qualify as shoplifting under Pen. Code, § 459.5; and the equal protection clause does not require vehicle burglary to receive the same treatment as vehicle theft under Proposition 47].)
We granted Madrid permission to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. He did not do so.
As requested by counsel, we reviewed the record for error and did not find any reasonably arguable appellate issues. Madrid has been competently represented by counsel in this appeal.
3 DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
MCCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, J.
O'ROURKE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Acosta B261828 · 2015-11-20
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12