P. v. Renteria

Filed 3/17/17 P. v. Renteria CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL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(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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
RONALD DAVE RENTERIA,
Defendant and Appellant.
B275606
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. KA038347)
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, William C. Ryan, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Offices of David R. Greifinger and David R.
Greifinger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
________________________________________

-- 1 of 4 --

2
On October 29, 1998, a jury convicted appellant Ronald
Dave Renteria of carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a))1
and
escaping from custody (§ 4532, subd. (b)(1)). As to the
carjacking, the jury found true the allegation that appellant
personally used a firearm (a handgun) to commit the offense
(§ 12022.5). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found
true prior strike and prison term allegations. The court
sentenced appellant to a total state prison term of 69 years
to life: 27 years on the carjacking count under the Three
Strikes law, plus 10 years for the firearm enhancement; and
25 years to life on the escaping from custody count under the
Three Strikes law as a third strike, plus five years for a prior
serious felony conviction and two years for two prior felony
drug convictions.
On November 13, 2015, appellant filed a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus, seeking resentencing of his Three
Strikes sentence under Proposition 36. He argued that his
third strike conviction for escaping from custody was not
serious or violent and thus, he was entitled to two-strike
resentencing under section 1170.126. On February 26, 2016,
the trial court treated the petition as one seeking relief
under Proposition 47 and resentencing pursuant to section
1170.18. It summarily denied the petition, determining that
escaping from custody is not a crime eligible for resentencing
under Proposition 47. Appellant timely appealed.
1
All further statutory citation is to the Penal Code,
unless otherwise stated.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
After examining the record, appointed appellate
counsel filed a brief raising no issues, but asking this court
to independently review the record on appeal pursuant to
People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442. (See Smith
v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 264.) Appellant filed a
supplemental letter brief, arguing he was entitled to have
the two one-year sentencing enhancements under 667.5,
subdivision (b) stricken on the basis that the underlying
1986 and 1988 felony drug convictions have been reclassified
to misdemeanors pursuant to Proposition 47.
Appellant has not demonstrated his entitlement to
resentencing. As this court previously held in People v.
Hoang, review granted October 12, 2016, S236454, a prior
felony conviction reclassified to a misdemeanor pursuant to
Proposition 47 can support the sentence enhancement under
section 667.5. As the Supreme Court has not yet decided the
issue and appellant’s arguments do not persuade us
otherwise, we affirm our prior ruling and apply it to this
case. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court did not err in
denying appellant’s petition seeking resentencing pursuant
to Proposition 47.
This court has examined the entire record in
accordance with People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pages
441-442, and is satisfied appellant’s attorney has fully
complied with the responsibilities of counsel, and no
arguable issues exist. Accordingly, we affirm.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL
REPORTS.
MANELLA, J.
We concur:
EPSTEIN, P. J.
COLLINS, J.

-- 4 of 4 --