Filed 9/22/20 P. v. Medrano CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This 

opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a). 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ALFREDO MAGIANO 

MEDRANO,

Defendant and Appellant.

B304798

Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. KA103398

APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, David C. Brougham, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Alfredo Magiano Medrano appeals from the 

order denying his request for recall and resentencing under 

Proposition 47 (Pen. Code,1 § 1170.18). Defendant also appeals 

from the order denying his request for modification of sentence 

under Senate Bill No. 136 (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Our independent 

review of the record has revealed no arguable appellate issues, 

and we affirm both orders.

BACKGROUND

On October 1, 2014, defendant pled no contest to firstdegree residential burglary (§ 459). He also admitted suffering a 

prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subd. (b), 1170.12, subd. (a)), and 

two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court 

sentenced defendant to a total of 14 years in state prison. The 

court imposed the upper term of six years for the burglary 

conviction, doubled to 12 years because of the prior strike, plus 

two years for the prior prison term enhancements to run 

consecutively.

On January 9, 2020, defendant filed a petition for recall 

and resentencing requesting that his burglary conviction be 

designated a misdemeanor under Proposition 47. On the same 

day, defendant filed a motion for modification of sentence 

requesting that the prior prison term enhancements be set aside 

under Senate Bill No. 136. The court denied both requests in 

separate orders.

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

Defendant filed timely notices of appeal from both orders, 

and we appointed counsel to represent him. On June 30, 2020, 

appointed counsel filed a brief in which he raised no issues and 

asked us to review the record independently under People v. 

Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443. The next day, we notified 

defendant that his attorney had failed to find any arguable issues 

and that he could submit by brief or letter any arguments he 

wished this court to consider. We have not received a response. 

DISCUSSION

Under section 1170.18, a person currently serving a felony 

sentence for an offense that is now a misdemeanor under 

Proposition 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. (§ 1170.18, subd. (a).) Firstdegree residential burglary was not one of the crimes reduced to 

a misdemeanor under Proposition 47. (See §§ 459, 459.5 

[shoplifting requires “entering a commercial establishment”], 460, 

subd. (a) [defining first degree burglary], 1170.18, subd. (a).) 

Thus, the court properly determined that defendant was 

ineligible for resentencing under Proposition 47.

Senate Bill No. 136, which became effective January 1, 

2020, amended section 667.5, subdivision (b), to make one-year 

enhancements pursuant to that statute applicable only to prior 

prison terms for a sexually violent offense as defined in 

subdivision (b) of Section 6600 of the Welfare and Institutions 

Code. (Sen. Bill No. 136 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.).) Senate Bill No. 

136 is retroactive to non-final judgments under In re Estrada

(1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 742. (See People v. Keene (2019) 43 

Cal.App.5th 861, 865.) Because the judgment in this case became 

final for purposes of Estrada when defendant failed to appeal it 
4

years ago, the court did not err in denying his motion for 

modification of sentence under Senate Bill No. 136.

We have examined the entire record, and are satisfied 

appellate counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and 

no arguable issues exist in the appeal before us. (Smith v. 

Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278–284; People v. Wende, supra, 25 

Cal.3d at p. 443.)
5

DISPOSITION

The orders are affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

LAVIN, J.

WE CONCUR:

EDMON, P. J.

DHANIDINA, J.