Court Opinion

ID: 9890892
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-16 19:03:31.981217+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:12.877583
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/16/23 P. v. Thomas CA2/4

   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE,                                                  B325269

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                           (Los Angeles County
                                                             Super. Ct. No.YA094365)
         v.

TITO ACE THOMAS,

         Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Amy N. Carter, Judge. Affirmed.
     Stanley D. Radtke, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
     No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

       Appellant Tito Ace Thomas appeals the denial of his
petition to seal arrest records pursuant to Penal Code section
851.91.1 Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief raising no
issues pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216
(Delgadillo) and requesting an independent review of the record.
Appellant filed a supplemental brief in which he appears to seek
vacation of his convictions under sections 851.87 and 1473.7 and
a letter seeking expeditious resolution of the matter. We affirm.
                         BACKGROUND
       Appellant was arrested on June 21, 2016 in connection with
an incident that occurred at National University earlier that day.
He was subsequently charged by amended information with
second degree robbery (§ 211) and assault by means of force likely
to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)) of victim M.S.2
On December 13, 2016, appellant pled no contest to both counts.
On December 19, 2016, the trial court sentenced appellant to five
years of formal probation with various conditions, including 364
days in Los Angeles county jail and orders to stay away from
National University and M.S.
       On July 25, 2022, appellant filed a petition to seal his June
21, 2016 arrest and related records pursuant to section 851.91,
which requires the sealing of arrest records under certain
circumstances not present here and allows the sealing of other
arrest records in the interests of justice. (§ 851.91, subds. (a), (c).)
The trial court appointed counsel for appellant on October 4,
2022. Appellant and his counsel appeared for a hearing on the
petition on October 19, 2022. At the hearing, the court noted that

1     All further statutory references are to the Penal Code
unless otherwise indicated.
2     We refer to the victim using initials to protect his privacy.
(See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)(4).)

                                   2
appellant’s plea had been set aside and vacated, and the case had
been dismissed. The prosecutor objected to the petition on the
grounds that it was not properly noticed and contained other
facial defects. The court denied the petition without prejudice
and granted appellant leave to amend to correct the deficiencies.
       Appellant filed an amended petition on October 24, 2022.
In the amended petition, appellant asserted that his petition
should be granted because his arrest and “all related events
subsequent to the arrest” were “still interfering with my ability to
get a job and/or jobs and to earn a living.” Appellant further
asserted that he is “a man of good character” with “degrees from
different schools,” and his procedural rights were violated during
the prosecution of the case.
       The trial court heard the amended petition on November
14, 2022. The prosecution argued that granting the petition
would not serve the interests of justice because the crimes were
recent and resulted in a strike conviction. Appellant’s attorney
reminded the court that “the case has already been expunged”
before submitting and allowing appellant to personally address
the court. Appellant stated that M.S. came after him and gave
inconsistent accounts of the incident to authorities. He further
asserted that “the case was fabricated by the Sheriff
Department,” and that he was “sabotaged” and “messed over”
during the case, which “turned my life upside down.” The court
took the matter under submission. It ultimately denied the
petition, finding “that sealing the arrest would not serve the
interests of justice under Penal Code section 851.91 (c)(2).”
Appellant timely appealed.

                                 3
                           DISCUSSION
       Appellant’s appointed attorney filed a brief raising no
issues and requesting that this court proceed pursuant to
Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216. This court advised appellant of
his right to file a supplemental brief (see Delgadillo, supra, 14
Cal.5th at pp. 231-232), and appellant subsequently filed a brief
and a letter. We evaluate the arguments set forth in those
documents. (See id. at p. 232 [“If the defendant subsequently
files a supplemental brief or letter, the Court of Appeal is
required to evaluate the specific arguments presented in that
brief and to issue a written opinion”].)
       Appellant’s supplemental brief, filed July 7, 2023, consists
primarily of a motion seeking to vacate his conviction under
sections 851.87 and 1473.7 and legal argument in support of that
relief.3 Appellant asserts that the motion should be granted
because he has newly discovered evidence of his actual innocence,
namely the following: “On the morning of May 30, 2017 Mr.
Thomas was still dealing with the negative consequences of his
plea. As a result, he encouraged Department of Fair
Employment & Housing what Kathryn J. Virzi and [M.S.] ‘tell
the truth’ regarding the incident that led to the attack that
happen on June 21, 2016. [M.S.] told the Department of Fair
Employment & Housing Restraining order that Kathryn J. Virzi

3     Section 851.87 permits a person to seek the sealing of his or
her arrest record after successful completion of a prefiling
diversion program administered by a prosecuting attorney. (See
§ 851.87, subd. (a)(1).) Section 1473.7 allows a person no longer
in criminal custody to seek vacation of his or her conviction or
sentence for several enumerated reasons, including newly
discovered evidence of actual innocence. (See § 1473.7, subd. (a).)

                                4
filed.” The brief also includes the full texts of Health and Safety
Code section 11359 and Vehicle Code section 23152, both of which
appellant appears to suggest that M.S. violated. Attached to the
filing is a conformed copy of a motion for relief under sections
851.87 and 1473.7 that appellant filed in the trial court on June
20, 2023, as well as several documents supporting that motion.
Appellant’s second supplemental filing, a letter filed July 19,
2023, requests expeditious resolution of his appeal and states
that appellant wishes to be present for any oral argument.
       This court cannot rule on appellant’s motion for relief
under sections 851.87 and 1473.7 in the first instance. To the
extent appellant has not already done so, he may file such a
motion in the trial court. If the trial court denies the motion,
appellant may appeal that order to this court. (See § 1473.7,
subd. (f).)
       Nothing in either of appellant’s filings directly pertains to
his petition to seal his arrest under section 851.91 or the trial
court’s ruling denying the petition. He accordingly has not
carried his burden of demonstrating that the trial court
committed an error that justifies reversal of the order. (See
Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609.) We therefore affirm
the order.
                           DISPOSITION
       The order denying appellant’s section 851.91 petition is
affirmed.
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                      COLLINS, ACTING P.J.

We concur:
MORI, J.                                         ZUKIN, J.

                                 5