Filed 12/23/15 P. v. Ruiz CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E064398
v. (Super.Ct.No. FWV1401368)
MICHAEL RUIZ, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Smith,
Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Steven A. Torres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Michael Ruiz appeals from an order denying his petition
to reduce his robbery conviction to a misdemeanor pursuant to Penal Code
section 1170.18.1 We affirm the order.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant was charged by felony complaint with second degree robbery (§ 211,
count 1), grand theft person (§ 487, subd. (c), count 2), and first degree burglary (§ 459,
count 3). The complaint also alleged that he had served six prior prison terms. (§ 667.5,
subd. (b).) On December 3, 2014, defendant entered a plea agreement and pled guilty to
count 1. A trial court sentenced him to the agreed-upon term of two years in state prison.
It also dismissed the remaining counts and allegations.
On November 4, 2014, voters enacted Proposition 47, and it went into effect the
next day. (Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (a).) “Proposition 47 makes certain drug- and
theft-related offenses misdemeanors, unless the offenses were committed by certain
ineligible defendants. These offenses had previously been designated as either felonies
or wobblers (crimes that can be punished as either felonies or misdemeanors).” (People
v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1091.) “Proposition 47 also created a new
resentencing provision: section 1170.18. Under section 1170.18, a person ‘currently
serving’ a felony sentence for an offense that is now a misdemeanor under Proposition
1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise
noted.
2
47, may petition for a recall of that sentence and request resentencing in accordance with
the statutes that were added or amended by Proposition 47.” (Id. at p. 1092.)
On July 15, 2015, defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to
Proposition 47, in propria persona. At a hearing on July 31, 2015, the court determined
that defendant’s charge did not qualify for relief under Proposition 47 and denied the
petition.
On August 28, 2015, defendant filed a notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to
represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of
the case and one potential arguable issue: whether the court erred in denying defendant’s
petition for resentencing under Proposition 47. Counsel has also requested this court to
undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which
he has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
3
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
McKINSTER
J.
4