Filed 1/26/16 P. v. Calvin 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, E064328
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF096334)
CALVIN JAMES CALVIN, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky Dugan, Judge.
Affirmed.
Calvin James Calvin, in pro. per.; and Jennifer A. Gambale, under appointment by
the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 30, 2001, defendant and appellant Calvin James Calvin was charged
with four counts of grand theft exceeding $400, in violation of Penal Code1 section 487,
subdivision (a) (count Nos. 21, 23, 27, 32). The indictment further alleged that defendant
committed a theft in an amount exceeding $100,000, in violation of section 1203.045,
subdivision (b); took or destroyed property of a value exceeding $150,000, in violation of
section 12022.6, subdivision (a)(2); and engaged in a pattern of felony conduct that
involved the taking of more than $500,000, in violation of section 186.11, subdivision
(a)(1) and (2).
On February 27, 2003, a jury convicted defendant on all four counts of grand theft.
The jury did not find any of the enhancements to be true. On April 1, 2003, the court
sentenced defendant to serve five years in state prison. The court also awarded defendant
189 days of credit for time served. As for restitution, the prosecutor informed the court
that there would be a problem determining an actual amount lost for each victim, and that
he could not come up with an “actual number.” No victim restitution was ordered by the
court.
On December 29, 2014, subsequent to the passage of Proposition 47, defendant
filed a petition for resentencing. In the petition, defendant stated that there was no
evidence that he committed a theft in excess of $950, and thus, his grand theft
convictions should be reduced to misdemeanors. On May 16, 2015, the People filed an
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
2
opposition stating that defendant was not entitled to the relief requested because “per
[the] indictment, [the] loss [was] over $100,000,” and defendant “was engaging in real
estate fraud.” The court summarily denied the petition on July 10, 2015.
On August 19, 2015, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
After 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, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court
to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he
has done so. On December 24, 2015, defendant filed a 13-page handwritten brief. In his
brief, defendant essentially challenges his underlying convictions from 2003, not the
ruling on his petition for resentencing. Defendant argues that the evidence did not
support his convictions. Defendant also contends that the trial court was biased: “I will
never forget the way Judge McConaghy looked at my wife at sentencing with such
venom hate. Keep in mind wife is a spitting image the actress Ms. Angelina Jolie. [¶]
Racism is like cancer, destroy’s any thing it penitrate’s. Appellant the victim.” (Sic.)
Defendant goes on to argue that “this court has the authority to modify the jury’s verdict
or grant a new trial on the Penal Code section 487 subdivision (a).” (Sic.) Defendant
should have raised these issues on direct appeal from the 2003 judgment. It is now too
3
late to raise these arguments on an appeal from the trial court’s denial of defendant’s
petition for resentencing under Proposition 47.
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.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
HOLLENHORST
J.
4