1

Filed 7/20/16 P. v. Cole 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

v.

JEFFREY MICHAEL COLE,
Defendant and Appellant. E065188
(Super.Ct.No. SWF028865)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky Dugan, Judge.

Affirmed.
Robert L.S. Angres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Jeffrey Michael Cole appeals from an order denying his
petition to reduce his receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)) conviction to2

a misdemeanor under Pena l Code section 1170.18 , enacted as part of Proposition 47

. 1

We find no error and will affirm the order.

I

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In July 2009, defendant received stolen property in the form of miscellaneous
tools and compact discs.

On July 20, 2009, a felony complaint was filed charging defendant with receiving
stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a) )

. The complaint further alleged that defendant had

suffered two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd

. (b) ) and one prior strike conviction

(§§ 667, sub ds. (c) & (e) (1) , 1170.12, subd. (c)(1))

.
On July 30, 2009, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, d efendant ple a d ed
guilty to receiving stolen property and admitted that he had suffered one prior prison term
and one prior strike conviction

. In return, the remaining allegation was dismissed and

defendant was sentenced to 44 months in state prison

. On November 4, 2014, voters enacted Proposition 47, entitled “the Safe
Neighborhoods and Schools Act” (hereafter Proposition 47). It went into effe ct the next
day. (Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (a).) As of its effective date, Proposition 47
classifies as misdemeanors certain drug

- and theft

- related offenses that previously were
felonies or “wobblers,” unless they were committed by certain inel igible defendants.

(§ 1170.18, subd. (a).) Among the crimes reduced to misdemeanors by Proposition 47,

1 All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.3

rendering the person convicted of the crime eligible for resentencing, is receiving stolen
property where the property value does not exceed $950. (§ 496, subd. (a).)

P roposition 47 also included a provision that allows certain offenders to seek
resentencing. Defendants who are serving a sentence , or who have completed a sentence,
for a felony that would have been a misdemeanor had Proposition 47 been in effect at the
time of the offense may file a petition for recall of sentence. (§ 1170.18.)

On May 21, 2015, defendant filed a petition to reduce his felony receiving

stolen property conviction to a misdemeanor and for resentencing pu rsuant to

section 1170.18. The People filed a response on October 28, 2015, and requested a
hearing to determine the monetary value of the property in defendant’s possession.
A hearing on defendant’s petition was held on December 11, 2015. At that time,

defense counsel indicated that he looked at the police report in the case and that the
police report noted the “miscellaneous tools which do have an amount in the report of
$1,020 in [ sic ] compact disks, without an amount, and there are 300 compact disks.” The

trial cour t denied the petition on the grounds that defendant was unable to prove the value

of loss was less than $950. Defendant filed timely notice s of appeal from that order.

II

DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, upon h is request, this court appointed counse l to
represent h im on appeal. 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 a4

statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and
requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he

has not done so.

Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
indepe ndently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error
that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

III

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ P. J. We concur:

McKINSTER J.

MILLER J.