Court Opinion

ID: 9920883
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-19 00:02:33.620774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:52:34.630727
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/18/24 P. v. Beltran 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                    (San Joaquin)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C098365

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                        (Super. Ct. Nos.
                                                                                 STK-CR-FE-2014-0007387,
                                                                                       SF129018A)
           v.

 ANTHONY RAY BELTRAN,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

          In November 2014, defendant Anthony Ray Beltran pled guilty to one count of
committing a lewd act on a child. The trial court sentenced defendant to one year in
prison.

                                                             1
       In August 2022, defendant filed a motion to reduce the felony conviction to a
misdemeanor under Penal Code1 section 17, subdivision (b). Defendant argued he had
completed the conditions of his parole and had not committed any other offenses since
his conviction. The prosecution filed a response, noting defendant had been sentenced to
prison and was thus ineligible for relief.
       In March 2023, the trial court held a hearing on the motion. Defendant cited
section 17, subdivision (b)(3) and argued it gave the court discretion to reduce the felony
to a misdemeanor.2 The court denied the motion.
       Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
                                       DISCUSSION
       We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening
brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that this court review the record to
determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30
days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have passed, and
defendant did not file a supplemental brief.

       In People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at page 441, our Supreme Court held that
“Courts of Appeal must conduct a review of the entire record whenever appointed
counsel submits a brief on direct appeal which raises no specific issues or describes the
appeal as frivolous.” (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 221.) The Wende
procedure applies “to the first appeal as of right and is compelled by the constitutional

1      Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2      Section 17, subdivision (b)(3) designates certain offenses misdemeanors where
“the court grants probation to a defendant and at the time of granting probation, or on
application of the defendant or probation officer thereafter, the court declares the offense
to be a misdemeanor.”

                                               2
right to counsel under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
(Delgadillo, at p. 221.)
       In Delgadillo, our Supreme Court considered whether the Wende process applies
to a trial court’s order denying a petition for postconviction relief under section 1172.6
and concluded such procedures are not required. (People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th
at pp. 221-222.) While Delgadillo addressed the application of Wende’s review
procedures in the specific context of a postconviction relief order under section 1172.6, it
explicitly declined to apply its holding to other postconviction motions. (Delgadillo, at
p. 231, fn. 5 [“In this case, we are not deciding Wende’s application to other
postconviction contexts, which may present different considerations”].) As such, we will
exercise our discretion to conduct an independent review of defendant’s case for any
arguable issues.
       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/
                                                  ROBIE, Acting P. J.

We concur:

/s/
DUARTE, J.

/s/
KRAUSE, J.

                                              3