Court Opinion

ID: 9386826
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-13 19:02:41.793987+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:08.900250
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/13/23 P. v. Sims CA2/3

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This
 opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).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,                                                 B324089

        Plaintiff and Respondent,                            Los Angeles County
                                                             Super. Ct. No. GA096858
        v.

 RODNEY LOUIS SIMS,

        Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Jared D. Moses, Judge. Affirmed.
     Michele A. Douglass, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
     No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                          INTRODUCTION

     Defendant Rodney Louis Sims appeals from an order
denying his application for resentencing and to redesignate a
second degree robbery conviction as a misdemeanor offense under
Penal Code1 section 1170.18. We affirm.

                           BACKGROUND

       In October 2015, the People charged defendant in a one-
count information with second degree robbery in violation of
section 212.5, subdivision (c), a felony. The People further alleged
that defendant personally used a box cutter and screwdriver in
the commission of the robbery, causing the offense to become a
serious felony.
       In February 2016, a jury found defendant guilty of second
degree robbery in violation of section 212.5 as charged in the
information. The jury also found true the allegation that
defendant committed the robbery by personally using a
dangerous and deadly weapon. After defendant admitted prior
strike convictions, the court sentenced him to an aggregate term
of 35 years to life.
       On June 10, 2022, defendant filed an application for
resentencing and redesignation of his 2016 robbery conviction as
a misdemeanor conviction pursuant to section 1170.18, a statute
added by Proposition 47. Defendant stated he was convicted in
2016 of violating section 212.5, “a felony violation of a crime that
has now been made a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47.”
On June 20, 2022, the trial court summarily denied the

1   Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                    2
application because defendant’s robbery conviction is for an
offense that does not qualify for relief under section 1170.18. This
timely appeal followed.
       In an opening brief filed on January 30, 2023, 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. Defendant was given 30
days to submit additional briefing or a letter stating any grounds
for an appeal, or contentions, or arguments which he wishes this
court to consider. On February 27, 2023, defendant submitted a
letter brief and several attachments. Essentially, defendant
argues his robbery conviction was based on false testimony and
evidence and he did not receive a fair trial. In addition to
considering the issues raised in defendant’s letter brief we have
conducted an independent review of the record. (See People v.
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 232.) Finding no error, we
affirm the order.

                          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,

                                 3
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. 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.) Defendant—who was convicted of robbery—
is not statutorily eligible for relief under section 1170.18 and the
court properly denied his application on that basis.
       We also reject defendant’s challenges to his underlying
robbery conviction in this appeal. In his direct appeal, defendant
had the right to raise any issues relating to his conviction,
including challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and whether
he had obtained a fair trial. The judgment of conviction was
affirmed on appeal and has long since been final. (See People v.
Sims (Nov. 8, 2017, B271254) [nonpub. opn.].)

                                  4
                      DISPOSITION

    The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                    LAVIN, J.
WE CONCUR:

    EDMON, P. J.

    EGERTON, J.

                             5