Court Opinion

ID: 9369123
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-07 21:04:33.810063+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:13.107855
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/7/23 P. v. Roberts CA2/3

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

 Ca l ifornia Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on
 o p inions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(a). This
 o p inion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).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,                                                  B319291

        Plaintiff and Respondent,                             Los Angeles County
                                                              Super. Ct. No. TA003297
        v.

 CHRISTOPHER BERLIN
 ROBERTS,

        Defendant and Appellant.

      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.
                           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 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 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.

                                    2
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.

2According 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.

                                    3
                           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

                                  4
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.

                                 5
                            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.

                                    6