People v. Wood CA3

Filed 10/27/15 P. v. Wood CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C078603

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 13F04266)

v.

STEVEN PATRICK WOOD,

Defendant and Appellant.

This appeal raises one issue: whether defendant Steven Patrick Wood was entitled to have his felony conviction for receiving a stolen vehicle (a motorcycle) (Pen. Code, 1 § 496d, subd. (a)) reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47. We conclude, as did the trial court, the answer is “no” because receiving a stolen vehicle is not on the list of enumerated offenses, and to the extent defendant claims his right to equal protection

1 All further section references are to the Penal Code.

1

was violated, he had not shown he was similarly situated to a defendant convicted of misdemeanor petty theft of a vehicle valued at $950 or less because he has failed to present evidence from the record of conviction that the value of the personal property he received did not exceed $950. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In July 2013, defendant drove a 2002 Yamaha motorcycle that belonged to two others without their consent. In September 2013, defendant pled no contest to receiving this stolen vehicle, a felony. (§ 496d, subd. (a).) In December 2014, defendant petitioned the trial court to reduce this conviction to a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47. The trial court initially denied the petition because “[t]he property taken was more than $950.” Defendant then petitioned for reconsideration, attaching a sheet of paper from the Sacramento Police Department stating that the “vehicle/plate value” was $501. The trial court still denied the petition, concluding section 496d was an “ineligible charge.” DISCUSSION The passage of Proposition 47 created section 1170.18, which provides for any defendant “currently serving a sentence for a conviction . . . of a felony or felonies who would have been guilty of a misdemeanor under [Proposition 47] had [it] been in effect at the time of the offense [to] petition for a recall of sentence before the trial court that entered the judgment of conviction in his or her case to request resentencing . . .” under the statutory framework as amended by the passage of Proposition 47. (§ 1170.18, subd. (a); see Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2014) text of Prop. 47, § 14, pp. 73-74.) Among the crimes reduced to misdemeanors by Proposition 47, rendering the person convicted of the crime eligible for resentencing, are shoplifting where the property value does not exceed $950 (§ 459.5); petty theft, defined as theft of property where value of the money, labor, real or personal property taken does not exceed $950 (§490.2);