Filed 12/16/22 P. v. Washington CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RODERICK WASHINGTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B320103

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. GA048701)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Teri Schwartz, Judge. Appeal dismissed.

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal; Roderick Washington, in pro. per., for Defendant and 

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________________
2

In 2002, a jury found Roderick Washington guilty of two 

counts of second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code, § 459)1

and one count each of identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (a)) and grand 

theft of personal property (§ 487, subd. (a)), all felony offenses.

The trial court sentenced him to eight years in state prison, 

which was later reduced to six years after Washington’s direct 

appeal of his convictions. (People v. Washington (Apr. 26, 2004, 

B162464) [nonpub. opn.].)

“Approved by the voters in 2014, Proposition 47, the Safe 

Neighborhoods and Schools Act, reduced the punishment for 

certain theft- and drug-related offenses, making them punishable 

as misdemeanors rather than felonies.” (People v. Page (2017) 3 

Cal.5th 1175, 1179.) Proposition 47 added section 490.2, which 

states, in pertinent part, “Notwithstanding Section 487 or any 

other provision of law defining grand theft, obtaining any 

property by theft where the value of the money, labor, real or 

personal property taken does not exceed nine hundred fifty 

dollars ($950) shall be considered petty theft and shall be 

punished as a misdemeanor . . . .” (§ 490.2, subd. (a).) A person 

who has served a sentence for a felony that was reclassified 

under Proposition 47 may petition the trial court to redesignate 

the offense as a misdemeanor unless he or she is disqualified by 

certain other convictions. (§ 1170.18, subds. (a), (f), (i).)

In 2018, Washington filed in this action a petition under 

Proposition 47. Therein, he did not identify which convictions he 

was asking the trial court to redesignate as misdemeanors. The 

trial court denied the petition on the ground Washington’s crimes 

in this action involved property worth more than $950. 

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

Washington appealed, and we affirmed the order. (People v. 

Washington (Aug. 27, 2018, B288025) [nonpub. opn.].) We 

explained that nothing in our opinion precluded Washington from 

filing a new petition under Proposition 47 alleging sufficient facts 

to support a claim that a particular conviction could be 

redesignated as a misdemeanor because the offense involved the 

theft of property worth $950 or less. (Id. at pp. 3-5.) We noted 

that the evidence showed Washington used a false identification 

to purchase more than $2,000 worth of merchandise from a Best 

Buy store (count 1 for second degree commercial burglary and 

count 2 for identity theft), and he also used a false identification 

to purchase $633.21 worth of merchandise from a Target store

(count 4 for second degree commercial burglary and count 5 for 

grand theft of personal property). (Id. at p. 2.)2

On March 25, 2022, Washington filed in this action a new 

petition under Proposition 47. On March 28, 2022, the trial court 

granted the petition as to counts 4 and 5, redesignating as 

misdemeanors the offenses committed at the Target store. The 

court denied the petition as to counts 1 and 2, the offenses 

committed at the Best Buy store. 

On April 15, 2022, Washington filed in this action a third 

petition under Proposition 47, contending the trial court erred in 

declining to redesignate as misdemeanors counts 1 and 2.3 On 

2 During trial, the prosecutor dismissed count 3 for grand 

theft of personal property taken from Best Buy. (People v. 

Washington, supra, B162464, p. 2.) 

3 All Washington’s petitions under Proposition 47 in the 

record before us are timely under section 1170.18, as the statute 

requires such petitions or applications be filed “on or before 
4

April 19, 2022, the trial court issued a minute order denying this

petition on the ground the loss at issue in counts 1 and 2 

exceeded $950 for each offense. 

Washington appealed, and this court appointed counsel for 

him. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening 

brief stating he had found no arguable issues to raise on appeal 

and requesting that we follow the procedures set forth in People 

v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 (Serrano). We sent a 

letter to Washington and his appointed counsel, advising 

Washington that within 30 days he could submit a supplemental 

brief or letter stating any grounds for an appeal, or contentions or 

arguments he wanted this court to consider. Washington filed a 

supplemental brief.

Because Washington’s appeal is from an order denying 

post-conviction relief, and not his first appeal of right from his 

conviction, he is not entitled to our independent review of the 

record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. 

(Serrano, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 503.)4 He is entitled, 

however, to our review of any contentions set forth in a

supplemental brief he files. (See Serrano, at p. 503; cf., Ben C., 

November 4, 2022, or at a later date upon showing of good cause.” 

(§ 1170.18, subd. (j).)

4 Under Serrano, in a criminal appeal in which Wende does 

not apply, counsel who finds no arguable issues is still required to 

(1) inform the court that counsel has found no arguable issues to 

be pursued on appeal; (2) file a brief setting out the applicable 

facts and law; (3) provide a copy of the brief to appellant; and 

(4) inform the appellant of the right to file a supplemental brief. 

(Serrano, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 503, citing 

Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 544 (Ben C.).) 

Washington’s counsel has complied with these responsibilities.
5

supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 544, fn. 6.) If no supplemental brief is 

filed, we may deem the appeal to be abandoned and dismiss the 

appeal.

Although Washington filed a supplemental brief, he did not 

include any contention for us to review. He did not argue the 

trial court erred in declining to redesignate counts 1 and 2 as 

misdemeanors because the offenses involved property worth more 

than $950. Rather, he set forth the procedural history of this 

matter and the law surrounding Proposition 47, and then he 

asked us to “follow the procedures set forth in People v. Superior 

Court (Corona) (1981) 30 Cal.3d 193,” without elaborating on the 

procedures to which he was referring. That case involved the 

People’s challenge by writ of mandate to the relitigation of the 

defendant’s earlier unsuccessful challenges to two search 

warrants, and it has no application here. (Id. at pp. 196-197.) 

Because Washington has not stated any grounds for an appeal, or 

contentions or arguments he wants us to consider, we dismiss his 

appeal as abandoned.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

CHANEY, J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

BENDIX, J.