Filed 2/7/23 P. v. Roberts 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).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 PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CHRISTOPHER BERLIN 

ROBERTS,

Defendant and Appellant.

B319291

Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. TA003297

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

Defendant Christopher Berlin Roberts, also known as 

Christopher Robinson, appeals from an order denying his 

application for resentencing and to redesignate a robbery 

conviction as a misdemeanor offense under Penal Code1 section

1170.18. We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

In January 1990, the People charged defendant in a onecount 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 felony. 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.”

In February 1990, defendant was convicted of robbery, a 

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

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

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

1170.18 application states he has completed the sentence for the 

offense.

2

On December 14, 2021, 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 1990 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 relief. 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 declared counsel was unable

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

v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496. We gave defendant until 

December 21, 2022, to submit additional briefing or a letter 

stating any grounds for an appeal, or contentions, or arguments 

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

so. After 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 the 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 2014, 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.5th 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, defendant was convicted of robbery, a violation of 

section 211. Robbery is defined as “the felonious 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.” (Ibid.) Nor does the 
5

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 section 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:

EDMON, 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.