Filed 12/30/19 P. v. Kennon CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MAURYCE ANDRE KENNON,

Defendant and Appellant.

E072737

(Super.Ct.No. RIF140331)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky Dugan, Judge. Affirmed.

Kevin J. Lindsley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 20, 2007, a complaint charged defendant and appellant Mauryce Andre Kennon with burglary under Penal Code section 459 (counts 1, 3, 5); receiving stolen property under Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a) (counts 1, 4). The complaint also alleged that defendant committed the offenses for the benefit of a criminal street gang under Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b).

On February 21, 2008, defendant pled guilty to count 4, receiving stolen property, jewelry, under Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a). On April 16, 2008, the trial court granted defendant probation for three years. The court also ordered defendant to serve 206 days in county jail.

On January 15, 2019, defendant filed a “petition for resentencing—application for reduction to misdemeanor” of his conviction for receiving stolen property under Penal Code section 1170.18 (Proposition 47). The People, in its response, argued that defendant was not entitled to relief because he had “failed to meet [his] burden.” On March 19, 2019, the trial court denied defendant’s petition because “Defendant has presented no evidence he qualifies for relief. In possession of many pieces of stolen jewelry likely far in excess of $950.” The court stated that defendant may refile his petition “if he has proof that it is under $950. (See imaged police rpts).” In the police report, the officer noticed that the victim identified “a diamond bracelet, a single diamond earring, a silver pocket watch and three necklaces” as some of the stolen items. According to the victim, the value of the loss for the women’s jewelry was “possibly $10,000.00.”

On May 9, 2019, defendant filed his notice of appeal.

B. FACTUAL HISTORY

On October 3, 2009, officers from the Riverside Police Department searched defendant’s bedroom. The officers found several pieces of jewelry that were later discovered to have been stolen. Some of the stolen items included “a diamond bracelet, a single diamond earring, a silver pocket watch and three necklaces.”

DISCUSSION

After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record. Pursuant to Anders, counsel identified the following issue to assist the court in its search of the record for error: “Did the trial court err by denying appellant’s Prop 47 petition? (Penal Code 1170.18, subds. (a),(b), 496; People v. Washington (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 948, 952; People v. Perkins (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 128, 140; People v. Sherow (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 875, 877.)” As noted ante, however, the value of the stolen jewelry far exceeded $950.

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error, considered the issues listed by appellate counsel, and find no arguable issue for reversal on appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

MILLER

Acting P. J.

We concur:

SLOUGH

J.

RAPHAEL

J.