People v. Murrieta CA

Filed 12/7/15 P. v. Murrieta CA NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H042031 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1233066)

v.

VINCENT SABLAN MURRIETA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Vincent Sablan Murrieta appeals from an order denying his petition for Proposition 47 resentencing. On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in ruling that he was ineligible for resentencing. BACKGROUND On May 24, 2012, 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) and making or altering a key with knowledge that it would be used in the commission of a crime (Pen. Code, § 466; count 2). The complaint alleged one prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)/1170.12) and one prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). On August 23, 2012, appellant pleaded no contest to vehicle theft with a prior conviction (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)/Pen. Code, § 666.5). Appellant admitted one

prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)/1170.12) and one prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). Count two was dismissed. At the sentencing hearing on October 9, 2012, the trial court sentenced appellant to four years in prison for the vehicle theft. The trial court struck the punishment for the prior prison term pursuant to Penal Code section 1385. On January 8, 2015, appellant filed a petition for resentencing under Proposition 47 (Pen. Code, § 1170.18). The petition requested recall of the felony sentence for the vehicle theft and resentencing as a misdemeanor. On February 17, 2015, the trial court denied appellant’s petition for resentencing. In denying the petition, the trial court explained: “[Section] 10851 of the Vehicle Code is not one of the offenses enumerated in the resentencing provisions of [Penal Code section] 1170.18, or affected by the amendments or additions to the Penal Code under Proposition 47. [¶] And for that reason, I find the defendant is ineligible for the requested relief and the petition is denied.” DISCUSSION Appellant contends that the trial court erred in finding him ineligible for Proposition 47 resentencing. His argument is twofold. He first asserts that “the voters intended all thefts involving property valued under $950 to be treated as misdemeanors.” (Italics omitted.) He next asserts that it violates equal protection principles to deny misdemeanor sentencing to a conviction for “stealing a vehicle worth less than $950.” As explained below, we must affirm. On November 4, 2014, the voters enacted Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. (People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1089.) Proposition 47 “reduced the penalties for a number of offenses.” (People v. Sherow (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 875, 879 (Sherow). Appellant’s argument relies on Penal Code section 490.2, which was added by Proposition 47. Penal Code section 490.2 provides, in