Filed 2/7/23 P. v. Rober ts CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

Cal ifornia 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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).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 PEO PLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CHRISTOPHER BERLIN

ROBERTS

,

Defendant and Appellant. B 3 19291

Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. TA 003297

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los

Angeles County, Michael Shultz , Judge. Affirmed

.

Ava R. Stralla , under appointment by the Court of Appeal,

for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 INTRODUCTION

D efendant Christopher Berlin Roberts , also known as

Christopher Robinson, appeals from an order denying his

applicatio n for resentencing and to redesignate a robbery

conviction as a misdemeanor offens e under Penal Code 1 section

1170.18

. W e affirm.

BACKGROUND

In January 1990 , the People charged defendant in a one

count information with second degree robbery in violation of

section 211, alleging that defendant took personal property from

a victim by means of force and fear. The People further alleged

that the robbery was a fel ony. As noted in defendant’s opening

brief, the probation report set forth the facts of the offense as

follows: “ On December 18, 1989, the victim and the defendant got

into a verbal argument. As the victim walked away, the

defendant followed him and suddenly began to hit him about his

face and body. The victim tried to defend himself; however, the

defendant overpowered him. The defendant then removed an

unknown amount of United States (U.S.) Currency from the

victim’s pocket. The victim ran away from the defendant, but the

defendant followed him and beat him again. The defendant left

the victim lying on the ground. A police officer found the victim,

summoned paramedics, who transported the victim to Martin

Luther King Hospital for medical treatment.”

I n February 199 0 , defendant was convicted of robbery , a

felony, as charged in the information. Although the record on

1 U ndesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.3

appeal does not specify defendant’s sentence, defendant’s section

1170.18 applicatio n states he has completed the sentence for the

offense

. 2

On December 14 , 202 1 , defendant filed an application for

resentencing and redesignation of his 1990 robbery conviction as

a misdemeanor conviction pursuant to section 1170.18, a statute

added by Proposition 47. Defendant stated that he was convicted

in 199 0 of robbery , “a felony violation of a crime that has now

been made a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47

. ” The

People opposed the application because defendant’s conviction for

violating section 211 does not qualify for Proposition 47 r elief. On

January 14, 2022, the trial court summarily denied the

application because defendant’s felony conviction is for an offense

that does not qualify for relief under section 1170.18

. This timely

appeal followed.

Defendant’s appellate counsel declare d counsel was unable

to find any arguable issues and asked us to proceed under People

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

. W e gave defendant until

December 21, 2022

, to submit additional briefing or a letter

stating any grounds for an appeal, or contenti ons, or arguments

which he wishes this court to consider . To date he has not done

so. A fter exercising our discretion to conduct a review of the

merits of the appeal under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436

, we affirm the order.

2 According to the trial court, the abstract of judgment is not available

and th e case was not scanned into the court’s archive system. In

response to defendant’s September 21, 2022 “Motion to Cease and

Desist

, ” appellate counsel determined that defendant was placed on

probation but his probation was terminated and he was sent to state

prison in 1991 when he entered a guilty plea in another case.4 DISCUSSION

“ In November 2 014, voters approved Proposition 47, the

Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. [Citation.] Proposition 47

‘ reduced the punishment for certain theft

- and drug

- related

offenses, making them punishable as misdemeanors rather than

felonies. ’ [Citation.] Under Proposition 47, grand theft of property

valued at $950 or less is a misdemeanor if the defendant does not

have a specified prior conviction. [Citation.] Proposition 47 also

added section 1170.18, which permits a defendant to petition to

have his or her felony conviction resentenced to or redesignated

as a misdemeanor. [Citation.] A petition or application under

section 1170.18 must be filed on or before November 4, 2022,

absent a showing of good cause. ” ( People v. Bear (2018) 25

Cal.App.5 th 490, 495.)

The offenses that may be reclassified as misdemeanors

include the following: shoplifting of property worth $950 or less (§

459.5, subd. (a)) ; forgery of instruments worth $950 or less (§ 473,

subd. (b)) ; fraud involving financial instruments worth $950 or

less (§ 476a, subd. (b)) ; theft of, or receiving, property worth $950

or less (§§ 490.2, subd. (a), 496, subd. (a)); petty theft with a prior

theft

- related conviction (§ 666, subd. (a)); and possession of a

controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11350, subd. (a),

11377, subd. (a)). ( See People v. DeHoyos (2018) 4 Cal.5th 594,

597

– 598; see also People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 347, 355.)

Here, d efendant was convicted of robbery, a violation of

section 211. Robbery is defined as “ the fe lonious taking of

personal property in the possession of another, from his person or

immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means

of force or fear. ” (§ 211.) Robbery is not mere theft but is

accomplished by “ means of force or fear. ” ( I bi d. ) Nor does t he5

court ’ s initial suspension of imposition of the sentence after

defendant ’ s conviction transmute the robbery into mere theft or

into a misdemeanor

. Defendant

— who was convicted of robbery

— is simply not statutorily eligible for relief under s ection 1170.18.

The trial court properly denied his application

.6 DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

LAVIN, J.

WE CONCUR:

E DMON

, P. J.

NGUYEN, (KIM) J. *

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief

Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.