Filed 10/23/17 P. v. Mejia CA4/3
Opinion on remand from Supreme Court
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
RAUL MEJIA,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
G051527
(Super. Ct. No. 96CF2994)
O P I N I O N |
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Thomas A. Glazier, Judge. Affirmed.
Jared G. Coleman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris and Xavier Becerra, Attorneys General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina, Michael Pulos and Samantha Begovich, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
Analysis
Defendant Raul Mejia appeals from an order denying a petition for resentencing of his conviction for violating Penal Code section 487h (grand theft of cargo) as a misdemeanor.
This is our second opinion in this case. In our first opinion we held that the trial court correctly denied the petition and we affirmed because defendant had not proved the value of property he stole did not exceed $950 in value. (People v. Mejia (Mar. 15, 2016, G051527) [nonpub. opn.], review granted May 18, 2016, S233345.) The California Supreme Court granted defendant’s petition for review, and later transferred the case back to this court for reconsideration in light of People v. Romanowski (2017) 2 Cal.5th 903 (Romanowski).
In Romanowski, the court held that a petitioner seeking resentencing under Proposition 47 bears the burden of proving the facts necessary to recall a sentence, including but not limited to the fact that the value of the stolen property was $950 or less. (Romanowski, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 916.) Defendant’s original petition did not provide any evidence of the value of the property stolen. Indeed, defendant admitted that “[t]he record contained no facts regarding the underlying crime,” but posited that the prosecution bore the burden of establishing the value of the property stolen. After the Supreme Court transferred the case back to this court for reconsideration, we requested supplemental briefing on the issue; defendant did not respond to our request.
Therefore, we affirm the order denying defendant’s petition for resentencing without prejudice to subsequent consideration of a properly supported petition.
Disposition
The order denying defendant’s petition for resentencing is affirmed without prejudice to subsequent consideration of a properly supported petition.
FYBEL, J.
WE CONCUR:
BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J.
THOMPSON, J.
