Court Opinion

ID: 9899027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-15 19:04:18.233246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:19.232918
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/15/23 P. v. Tegeda CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                     (Sacramento)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C098130

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Super. Ct. No. 20FE014090)

           v.

 PEDRO VASQUES TEGEDA,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Pedro Vasques Tegeda appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for
resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18.1 Appointed counsel filed a brief raising
no arguable issues under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), requesting we
exercise our discretion to review the entire record for arguable issues on appeal.
Defendant filed a supplemental brief. We shall affirm.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                                             1
                                      BACKGROUND
       On May 18, 2022, defendant pleaded no contest in two cases to vehicle theft and
second degree robbery, admitting a prior strike in both cases and to personally using a
deadly weapon for the robbery conviction. The stipulated facts for defendant’s plea for
the first case were that defendant robbed a liquor store with a knife, threatening to kill the
store clerk in the process. For the second case, defendant unlawfully drove and took a car
valued at over $950 without consent and to permanently deprive the owner possession of
that car. That same day the trial court sentenced defendant to the stipulated term of six
years four months comprised of four years for robbery, 16 months for vehicle theft, and
one year for the weapon enhancement.
       In November 2022, defendant filed a motion to reduce his vehicle theft conviction
to a misdemeanor. On January 4, 2023, the trial court denied the petition by written order
finding there was “[n]o showing of value less than $950.” Defendant appealed on
February 17, 2023.
                                       DISCUSSION
       We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening
brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and
determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d
436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within
30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief.
       Defendant filed a supplemental brief asking for a “Prop[osition] 47 misdemeanor
rule petition” and stating, “They denied my Prop[osition] 47 because there wasn’t proof
of the price of the pick-up. I didn’t steal it I went for a joyride.” We interpret this
argument as challenging the trial court’s denial of his petition; we find no error here.
Following Proposition 47’s enactment on November 5, 2014, the crime of receiving
stolen property is a misdemeanor if the value of the stolen property received does not
exceed $950. (§ 496, subd. (a).) Defendant here pleaded to facts establishing theft of

                                              2
property valued over $950 and did so well after the passage of Proposition 47. We must
therefore reject defendant’s challenge to the trial court’s section 1170.18 finding.
       To the extent defendant is challenging the validity of his plea, this appeal was not
timely. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.308(a).) And even if it was timely, he did not
obtain a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5, subd. (b); People v. Cuevas (2008)
44 Cal.4th 374, 379.)
       Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error
that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
                                       DISPOSITION
       The trial court’s order is affirmed.

                                                   /s/
                                                  WISEMAN, J.*

We concur:

 /s/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.

 /s/
KRAUSE, J.

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by
the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                              3