People v. Singleton CA4/2 ( 2022 )

Filed 12/14/22 P. v. Singleton 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, E077389
v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB20937)
STEVEN P. SINGLETON, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Harold T. Wilson,
Jr., Judge. Affirmed.
Richard Schwartzberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal and Robin
Urbanski, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Steven P. Singleton appeals the San Bernardino County
Superior Court’s denial of his Penal Code section 1170.18 petition in which he sought to
reduce his felony conviction for auto theft to a misdemeanor.1 We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In 2000, a jury found defendant guilty of three felonies: residential burglary
(§ 459, count 1), grand theft of a firearm (§ 487, subd. (d), count 3), and unlawfully
taking or driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a), count 4). It also found him
guilty of a misdemeanor count of hit-and-run driving. (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a),
count 5.) The trial court imposed a 93-year prison term.
Defendant appealed to this court. (People v. Singleton (Feb. 25, 2002, E028952)
[nonpub. opn.].) We affirmed the convictions but remanded the matter for resentencing
because the trial court had improperly imposed prior serious felony conviction
enhancements. (Ibid.) An abstract of judgment filed in May 2002 shows the three felony
convictions and reflects that on remand the trial court reduced the prison term to 88 years
to life consecutive to a determinate term of 13 years.
In August 2017, the court heard a petition filed by defendant pursuant to section
1170.18, that resulted in resentencing only as to count 3 (grand theft of a firearm).
In January 2018, the court appointed counsel to represent defendant with respect
to a new section 1170.18 petition he filed in propria persona seeking to reduce the count
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
2
4 Vehicle Code violation to a misdemeanor. Counsel requested a continuance to look
into the matter. Three months later, she withdrew the petition on defendant’s behalf.
In February 2020, defendant filed another section 1170.18 petition requesting the
court to designate the felony residential burglary and Vehicle Code violation convictions
as misdemeanors. The People responded that the burglary charge is not eligible for
reduction but did not address the felony Vehicle Code violation. The court appointed
counsel for defendant and set the petition for hearing. Counsel waived defendant’s
presence.
The petition was heard in June 2021. No mention of the auto theft conviction was
made by either of the parties or the court. Defendant’s counsel submitted without
argument, and the court denied the petition. Defendant appealed.
DISCUSSION
Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his section
1170.18 petition without an evidentiary hearing to establish his eligibility for relief for
resentencing as to the count 4 auto theft conviction. The People contend the court
correctly denied the petition because it did not include any information or evidence
necessary to establish the stolen vehicle’s value did not exceed $950.
We agree with the People. It is well settled that defendants convicted of a felony
violation of subdivision (a) of Vehicle Code section 10851 who seek reduction of that
conviction to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 1170.18 must establish their eligibility
for relief. (People v. Page (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1175, 1188-1189 (Page).) That is, they must
3
make a prima facie showing in their petition that (i) the vehicle was worth $950 or less,
and (ii) they were convicted for the theft of the vehicle (as distinguished from posttheft
driving or taking the vehicle without the intent to permanently deprive the owner of
possession). (Ibid.) If the defendant’s section 1170.18 petition does not set forth a
factual basis establishing those two required elements, the trial court may summarily
deny relief. (Page, at p. 1188, citing People v. Perkins (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 129, 136-
137 (Perkins).) Here, defendant’s petition set forth only the Vehicle Code statute under
which he was convicted, with no information about the theft or the value of the vehicle.
Defendant argues the trial court was obligated to conduct an evidentiary hearing
on the petition to resolve the facts because the People’s response to his petition did not
address his request for resentencing as to the Vehicle Code violation. The authority
defendant cites, People v. Romanowski (2017) 2 Cal.5th 903 (Romanowski) and People v.
Simms (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 987 (Simms), do not support his claim.
In Romanowski, our Supreme Court addressed the issues whether theft of access
card account information is a crime eligible for reduced punishment and, if so, the
manner in which the value of that information could be established for purposes of a
section 1170.18 petition. (Romanowski, supra, 2 Cal.5th at pp. 905-906.) It explained
uncontested information contained in the petition and record of conviction may in some
cases establish a factual basis to support defendant’s eligibility for relief. (Id. at p. 916.)
In those cases, the court may resentence defendant unless, in its discretion, the court
determines that doing so would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.
4
(Ibid.) On the other hand, when the uncontested petition and record of conviction do not
establish eligibility for relief, an evidentiary hearing may be required if, after considering
the verified petition, the return, any denial, any sworn statements, and matters of which
judicial notice may be taken, the court finds (i) there is a reasonable likelihood the
defendant may be entitled to relief, and (ii) the entitlement to relief depends on the
resolution of an issue of fact. (Ibid.)
In Simms, the court held defendant’s rights were violated when an evidentiary
hearing was conducted in defendant’s absence and he had not waived his presence.
(Simms, supra, 23 Cal.App.5th at p. 998.) In the course of providing a procedural setting
for the reader, Simms reviewed the circumstances in which an evidentiary hearing is
required set forth in Romanowski. (Id. at pp. 993-994.)
Romanowski and Simms are inapposite here because defendant’s petition did not
state any facts to support his claims for relief. As explained, ante, if a section 1170.18
petition does not set forth facts showing eligibility for reduction of a felony violation of
Vehicle Code section 10851, the court may summarily deny relief. (Page, supra, 3
Cal.5th at p. 1188; Perkins, supra, 244 Cal.App.4th at pp. 136-137.)
Here, the defendant failed to make any showing that his Vehicle Code conviction
was eligible for relief pursuant to section 1170.18. Accordingly, the trial court did not err
when dismissing defendant’s petition.
5
DISPOSITION
The order denying defendant’s resentencing petition is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
MILLER
J.
MENETREZ
J.
6