People v. Price CA2/5

Filed 10/9/15 P. v. Price CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B262405

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA080920) v.

ALFI ALI PRICE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ann I. Jones, Judge. Affirmed. Mae G. Alberto, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Mary Sanchez, Deputy Attorney General, and Noah P. Hill, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _____________________________

Prior to a felony preliminary hearing, defendant and appellant Alfie Ali Price entered a plea of no contest in August 2014 to second degree burglary, in violation of Penal Code section 459,1 and was sentenced to three years in state prison.2 In December 2014, defendant, through the public defender, filed a petition for relief under Proposition 47 (“The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act”) to have his offense declared a misdemeanor shoplifting (§ 459.5). The trial court held a hearing on the petition for relief in January 2015. The court noted that defendant was convicted of the second degree burglary of a car wash. The court stated that Proportion 47 “is fairly narrowly drawn” and it does not apply to all convictions of second degree burglary, only those that would be conduct amounting to the newly created offense of shoplifting. Section 459.5 is only violated if a perpetrator entered a commercial establishment open during regular business hours. According to the court and the prosecutor, defendant had no other convictions that would disqualify him for relief under Proposition 47. Colloquy ensued between the court and counsel for the parties regarding the facts of the case. Counsel for defendant and the prosecutor discussed facts contained in the police report and a follow-up investigative report. The court ultimately denied resentencing without relying on information drawn from the police reports. Instead, the court ruled as a matter of law that defendant had the burden of proving he committed only a shoplifting and not a second degree burglary, defendant presented no evidence on the conduct involved, and therefore he had not carried his burden of proof. If the rule were otherwise all second degree burglaries would be reduced to shoplifting, which the court viewed as inconsistent with the ameliorative provisions of Proposition 47.