People v. Vernon CA6

Filed 11/19/15 P. v. Vernon CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H042231 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1473437)

v.

TIMOTHY PAUL VERNON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Timothy Paul Vernon appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing under Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in ruling that he was ineligible for resentencing. As set forth below, we conclude that the trial erred in ignoring the plain language of Penal Code section 490.2, which was added by Proposition 47, and we will reverse. BACKGROUND On January 15, 2014, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed a complaint charging appellant with vehicle theft with a prior conviction (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)/Pen. Code, § 666.5; count 1), receiving a stolen motor vehicle with a prior conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 496d/666.5; count 2), recklessly evading a peace officer (Veh.

Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a); count 3), possession of burglary tools (Pen. Code, § 466; count 4), and resisting a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1); count 5). On June 10, 2014, appellant pleaded no contest to vehicle theft with a prior conviction (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)/Pen. Code, § 666.5; count 1) and recklessly evading a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a); count 3).1 The prosecutor dismissed the remaining counts charged in the complaint. On August 29, 2014, the trial court sentenced appellant to a two-year prison term for the vehicle theft and a consecutive eight-month prison term for the reckless evasion. On February 27, 2015, appellant filed a petition for resentencing under Proposition 47. The petition requested recall of the felony sentence for the vehicle theft and resentencing as a misdemeanor. In support of the petition, appellant filed a brief regarding the applicability of Proposition 47 to violations of Vehicle Code section 10851. The brief alleged that the vehicle appellant stole was worth less than $950, and that appellant should thus be resentenced as a misdemeanant. The trial court denied appellant’s resentencing petition on April 6, 2015. In denying the petition, the trial court explained that appellant was ineligible for resentencing due to “the lack of any effect of Proposition 47 on violations of Vehicle Code Section 10851.” Appellant now appeals from the order denying his petition for resentencing.2