Filed 8/25/21 P. v. Moon CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ADRIAN D

. MOON,

Defendant and Appellant. B306195 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. 9PR07719, BA332095, BA362256)

APPEAL from post

- judgment orders of the Superior Court of Los

Angeles County, Eleanor Hunter, Ju dge. Affirmed.

Stanley Dale Radtke, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,

for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.2

Defendant Adrian D. Moon appeals from multiple trial court

orders entered between April 27 and September 9, 2020, including a

July 27, 2020 order denying his petition for reduction of multiple felony

convi c tions to misdemeanors (Pen. Code, 1 § 17, subd. (b)), and dismissal

of felony convictions (§ 1203.4). 2 Defendant makes no substantive

argument t hat would support reversing any trial court order from

which he appeals . Accordingly, we affirm.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

I. Los Angeles Superior Court ( LASC ) Case No s . BA332095 and 9PR07719

In May 2010 , in LASC case N o. BA332095, defendant was found

guilty of 38 felony counts, including 19 counts of attempting to file a

false or forged instrument (§§ 664 / 115), six counts of attempted grand

theft (§ 664 / 487), six counts of forgery (§ 470), three counts of preparing

false documents (§ 134), and four cou nts of offering false evidence

(§ 132). Defendant was sentenced to 20 y ears in state prison.

1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 The orders from which defendant purports to appeal also include : (1) An April 27 , 2020 order declining to file a peremptory challenge (§ 170.6) in a closed case; ( 2 ) July 13, 2020 orders denying an untimely request to disqualify a judge (§ 170.6), denying numerous requests for bench warrants, and denying defendant’s r equ e st for a copy of a reporter’s transcript at court

expense ; ( 3 ) August 24, 2020 orders granting motions to quash by various public officials and others, and declaring defendant a vexatious litigant ; and ( 4 ) a September 9, 2020 order denying defendant’s emergency request for an order directing the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and Los Angeles
Sheriff’s Department s (LASD) to effectuate the arrest of private citizens.3

In an unpublished opinion filed in December 2011, People v. Moon

(Dec. 14, 2011, B 227559 [nonpub. o pn

. ] )

, Division Three vacated

defendant’s sentence on one for gery count

, ordered his sentence stayed

on five other counts (§ 654 ) , and otherwise affirmed the conviction s

. ( Id

. at pp. 11

– 12

. ) Defendant was resentenced to 16 years, 8 months i n

state prison.

On January 19, 2018, defendant was released from prison a nd

placed in post

- release community supervision (PRCS) , which was set to

expire on February 20, 2022

. 3

3 On October 30, 2019, defendant filed a motion seeking discharge from

“ AB 109 Probation

. ” We u nderstand the reference to “AB 109 probation” to refer to PRCS, as set forth in section 3451, enacted by Assembly Bill 109. (Stats. 2011, ch. 15, § 479.) Defendant ’s motion was assigned LASC case N o. 9PR07719. On March 13, 2020, the trial court ( Judge Rosenberg ) d ismissed
defendant’s motion for discharge from AB 109, concluding defendant had

“ provided no legal or factual basis for the court to grant this request. ” Defendant did not appeal that decision

. On March 16, 2020, defendant filed an “ex parte application” seeking
reconsideration of Judge Rosenberg’s ruling on his motion for discharge from

AB 109 probation . On March 24, 2020, the trial court concluded that
defendant had failed to present “ any new or different facts or circumstance s to support h is summary claim that the Court should reconsider any of its rulings at the March 13, 2020 hearing on his motion s , ” and it denied the

motion.

In mid

- April 2020, appellant sought to file a p eremptory challenge to Judge Rosenberg’s successor, pursuant to C ode of Civ il Proc edure section

170.6. On April 27, 2020, the trial court declined to file defendant’s challenge, ruling that the case was closed. On May 22, 2020, defendant filed a notice of appeal from the April 27, 2020 decision, which was assigned ca se N o. B306195, in th is c ourt.4

On July 15, 2020, defendant filed a first amended petition seeking

to have his felony convictions reduced to misdemeanors (§ 17, subd

. (b) )

and expunge d (§ 1203.4 )

. 4 T he district attorney opposed the request,

arguing defendant was not statutorily eligible for expung e ment because

he had neither started n or completed probation. Rather, defendant had

been sentenced to prison and, in early June 2020

, had c ompleted PCRS,

which i s not probation within the meaning of section 1203.4. T he

district attorney also argued defendant was ineligible for relief under

sections 1203.41 and 1203.42 because the charges o f which he had been

convicted were not within the sco pe of section 1170, subdivision (h).

Defendant’s amended petition was denied on July 27, 2020.

On July 31, 2020, defendant filed a petition again seeking to have

his felony convictions reduced to misdemeanors (§ 1 7, subd. (b) ) and

expunged (§ 1 203.4 ).

On August 21, 2020, defendant filed a “ S upplemental ,” seeking

reconsideration of the court’s order denying his petition for reduction

and expung e ment. (§ 1 385 ; Code Civ. Proc., § 1008.) This request was

denied with prejudice on August 24, 2020.

On A ugust 24, 2020, the trial court declared defendant a vexatious

litigant . As such, defendant was b arred from seeking or obtaining

further subpoenas or conducting discovery on any third party absent

prior court approval.

4 The record does not contain a copy of defendant’s initial petition , only

the d istrict a ttorney’s “ Opposition to Defendant’s Petition to Expunge
Conviction ” (§§ 17, 1203.4, 1203.41, 1203.42 and 1203.43 ), filed on July 13,

2020

.5

On September 11, 2020, appellant fi led a notice of appeal in case

No. BA362256 from orders dated July 13 and 27, 2020, August 24, 2020,

and September 9, 2020. 5

II. Los Angeles County Case No. BA362256

On February 8, 2010, defendant was convicted of perjury (§ 118,

subd. (a)), based on hi s submission of a fraudulent application for a

driver’s license in July 2007. Defendant was placed on probation on

August 30, 2010. Probation was terminated on September 9, 2010,

during defendant’s sentencing hearing in c ase No. BA332095.

On June 8, 20 20, appellant filed a petition for dismissal and

expungement

. (§§ 1203.3, 1203.41.) On July 27, 2020, t he trial court

found defendant statutorily ineligible for relief, declined to exercise its

discretion under section 1385, and denied the petition

.
On August 4, 2020, defendant again p etition ed for dismissal

. During a hearing on August 24, 2020, t h e court observed that

defendant’s petition had previously been heard and denied and denied

the petition w ith prejudice.

On September 9, 2020, appellant file d a motion en titled,

“ Emergency Motion and Ex Parte Application ” seeking orders for the

L APD and LASD to “ Effectuate the Arrest of the Private Citizens

Arrest .” The motion was denied on September 9, 2020

.

5 This appeal was assigned case No. B307905.6

On September 11, 2020, appellant filed a notice of appeal in case

No. BA362256 from orders dated July 13 and 27, 2020, August 24, 2020,

and September 9, 2020. 6

We appointed appellate counsel for defendant . Citing People v.

Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, counsel filed an opening brief

setting out the pertinent procedural history, and a declaration

indicating he had “reviewed the entire record on appeal. ” Counsel

stated he had explained his evaluation to defendant and informed him

of his right to file a supplemental brief. On May 14, 2021, we adv ised

defendant he had 30 days to file a supplemental brief.

On June 4, 2021, defendant filed a one

- page supplemental brief,

which we have read and considered. Pursuant to People v. Cole (2020)

52 Cal.App.5th 1023 [ review granted Oct

. 14, 2020, S264278 ]

, our

obligation in reviewing an appeal from an order denying postconviction

relief is to “evaluate [the] arguments presented” in the appellant’s

supplemental brief. ( Id . at p. 1040.)

Defendant’s supplemental brief contains no substantive argument

.
Rathe r, defendant style s his supplemental brief as an “Emergency

Motion Under [Ninth] Circuit Rule 27

- 3,” and he requests that this

c ourt stay the “briefing schedule until the Assignment of the New

Appeals

. . . and upon receipt of the Full Record on Appeal.”

Defendant’s supplemental brief addresses an issue unrelated to and not

6 On January 26, 2021, this c ourt consolidated for all purposes defendant’s three appeals, and ordered that all previously submitted

documents be refiled under case No. B306195.7

addressed in any o rder from which he has appeal ed . Accordingly, there

are no grounds upon which to disturb any of the t rial court orders

.

DISPOSITION

The trial court’s orders are aff irmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

WILLHITE, J.

We concur:

MANELLA

, P. J.

COLLINS , J.