Court Opinion

ID: 9881743
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 20:18:09.400149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:14:23.412779
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/3/23 P. v. McIntosh CA2/2
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                        DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,                                                         B327572

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                                  (Los Angeles County
                                                                    Super. Ct. No.
         v.                                                         KA058124)

TAVARES LONDELL MCINTOSH,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      THE COURT:
      In 2002, defendant and appellant Tavares Londell
McIntosh was convicted of one count of robbery (Pen. Code,
§ 211)1 following a guilty plea. He was initially placed on
probation, but, following a violation, he was sentenced to serve
two years in state prison.

1     All further statutory references are to the Penal Code
unless otherwise indicated.
       On October 24, 2022, defendant filed a section 1170.18
petition requesting that his felony conviction be redesignated a
misdemeanor conviction pursuant to Proposition 47.2 The trial
court denied the petition on December 21, 2022, on the ground
that defendant’s robbery conviction was not eligible for reduction.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
       Counsel was appointed to represent defendant in
connection with this appeal. After reviewing the record,
appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues and asking this
court to follow the procedures set forth in People v. Delgadillo
(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). On July 20, 2023, we notified
defendant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit
a supplemental brief or letter stating any grounds for an appeal,
contentions, or arguments for us to consider. We also informed
defendant that his appeal could be dismissed if a supplemental
brief or letter was not timely filed. Defendant filed a
supplemental letter on August 4, 2023.

2     Approved by voters in 2014, “‘Proposition 47 makes certain
drug- and theft-related offenses misdemeanors, unless the
offenses were committed by certain ineligible defendants. These
offenses had previously been designated as either felonies or
wobblers (crimes that can be punished as either felonies or
misdemeanors).’ [Citation.]” (People v. Morales (2016) 63 Cal.4th
399, 404.) Proposition 47 also added “section 1170.18, which
permits those previously convicted of felony offenses that
Proposition 47 reduced to misdemeanors to petition to have such
felony convictions resentenced or redesignated as misdemeanors.”
(People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 871, fn. omitted (Buycks).)
As relevant here, section 1170.18 “allows those who have already
completed their sentences for Proposition 47 eligible felony
convictions to petition to have their convictions ‘designated as
misdemeanors.’ (§ 1170.18, subd. (f).)” (Buycks, supra, at p. 871.)

                                 2
       Because this appeal is from an order denying postjudgment
relief rather than a first appeal of right, we are not required to
conduct an independent review of the record for arguable issues.
(See Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 226–228; People v.
Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 498, 503 (Serrano).) While
we would typically evaluate the merits of arguments presented in
a supplemental brief or letter (see Delgadillo, supra, at p. 232;
Serrano, supra, at pp. 503–504), here defendant has not set forth
any arguments pertaining to the December 21, 2022, order
denying his section 1170.18 petition. Instead, defendant’s
supplemental letter describes his conduct while incarcerated and
how he has changed. Defendant also attached copies of several
laudatory reports authored by prison staff, as well as a copy of a
minute order dated February 21, 2023, indicating that the trial
court subsequently granted a motion pursuant to section 1203.4,
vacated defendant’s guilty plea to the robbery count, entered a
plea of not guilty, and dismissed the count.
       We have been presented with no basis to reverse the trial
court’s denial of defendant’s section 1170.18 petition, which is the
only matter that we have jurisdiction to consider in this appeal.
Moreover, robbery (§ 211) is not an offense to which the
redesignation procedure under section 1170.18, subdivision (f),
applies. The theft-related offenses that may be designated as
misdemeanors under section 1170.18 include, inter alia,
shoplifting property valued at $950 or less (§ 459.5, subd. (a));
forgery of a document with a value of $950 or less (§ 473,
subd. (b)); petty theft of property valued at $950 or less (§ 490.2,
subd. (a)); and receiving stolen property valued at $950 or less
(§ 496, subd. (a)). (§ 1170.18, subd. (a).) Robbery is not an

                                 3
eligible offense. The trial court thus properly denied defendant’s
petition on that basis.3
                          DISPOSITION
       The order denying defendant’s section 1170.18 petition is
affirmed.
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

LUI, P. J.          ASHMANN-GERST, J.                 CHAVEZ, J.

3    Given our conclusion, we need not address whether the
subsequent February 21, 2023, order renders this appeal moot.

                                 4