Filed 1/25/18 P. v. Joseph 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Sacramento)
----


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ALONZO JOSEPH,

Defendant and Appellant.
C085058

(Super. Ct. No. 96F01301)





Appointed counsel for defendant Alonzo Joseph asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment (order).
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
On February 11, 1996, just after midnight, defendant knocked on Jaclyn Little’s front door and asked to use the telephone. Defendant made a call and left after a few minutes. He was dressed in blue Nike Cortez shoes.
A short time after defendant left Little’s home, she received a telephone call from a man who told her that a friend of hers had been shot and was at a hospital. She began driving to the hospital but decided to call on her cellular phone while enroute to obtain more information. The hospital told her that no one using her friend’s name had been admitted nor had a gunshot victim been admitted that evening.
When Little returned home, her front door had been broken in and bore a footprint on the front distinguished by the Nike logo. She discovered property was missing, including 13 one-dollar bills, a two-dollar bill, jewelry, and a Mitch Richmond Sacramento Kings jersey.
Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs Lee Parkhurst and Anthony Costanzo arrived at Little’s home to investigate. They saw the footprint on the front door next to the door handle. After Little identified defendant as her midnight visitor, they drove to defendant’s home.
Defendant invited the officers into his bedroom. He admitted he had been at Little’s home that evening. The officers saw a shoe lying on its side that appeared to be the same size with the same tread mark as the footprint found on Little’s door. They also saw a Kings jersey in plain view on a shelf in defendant’s closet. After taking defendant into custody, a search produced some cash and a necklace. Little later identified the Kings jersey and necklace as hers.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459; statutory section references that follow are to the Penal Code) and receiving stolen property (§ 496). The trial court sustained three strike and serious felony allegations and sentenced defendant to 35 years to life in state prison. We affirmed the judgment on appeal.
On December 9, 2014, and again on January 28, 2015, defendant filed section 1170.18 petitions seeking resentencing on the receiving conviction. The trial court summarily denied the petitions. On appeal, we affirmed the denial without prejudice to defendant filing a successive section 1170.18 petition with the trial court.
On March 6, 2017, defendant filed another section 1170.18 petition seeking resentencing on the receiving count. The petition contained no supporting evidence or allegations. The trial court denied the petition, finding there was no showing of the stolen items’ value.
Defendant appeals from the order.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)
Defendant filed a supplemental brief in which he asserts he provided the public defender with evidence to support his petition, eBay listings for a signed Mitch Richmond Sacramento Kings jersey at $159.99, and an 18-inch gold Herringbone necklace at $200. He claims that he informed a representative of the public defender’s office that his previous petition was denied due to lack of supporting evidence, but the petition was filed without the supporting evidence. Defendant concludes that he is entitled to relief based on this evidence.
Pursuant to Proposition 47, a defendant serving a term for receiving stolen property may be entitled to resentencing if the value of the stolen property does not exceed $950. (§§ 1170.18, subd. (a), 496, subd. (a).) As the petitioner, defendant has the burden of proving his eligibility for resentencing. (People v. Sherow (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 875, 878; People v. Rivas-Colon (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 444, 449.)
The supporting exhibits attached to defendant’s brief were not attached to the petition, and nothing in the record supports defendant’s claim that the public defender was given them but failed to attach the materials to the petition. Since defendant relies on evidence outside the record, his claim of ineffective assistance from the public defender is better addressed through a habeas corpus petition than on appeal. (People v. Michaels (2002) 28 Cal.4th 486, 526.)
Although in limited circumstances we have the discretion to take additional evidence (Code Civ. Proc., § 909), we exercise that discretion sparingly. (Monsan Homes, Inc. v. Pogrebneak (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 826, 830.) We will not do so here.
Defendant’s claim is without merit. However, as with the appeal from the denial of his first petition, we deny his contention without prejudice to his filing another petition supported by evidence of his eligibility.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment (order) is affirmed without prejudice to defendant’s filing a successive petition that supplies evidence of his eligibility for resentencing.



HULL , Acting P. J.



We concur:



ROBIE , J.



MAURO , J.