People v. Moran CA6

Filed 12/7/15 P. v. Moran CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H041942 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. Nos. C1348747 & C1358576) v.

JAMES GLEN MORAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant James Glen Moran appeals from an order denying his petitions for Proposition 47 resentencing. On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in ruling that he was ineligible for resentencing. BACKGROUND In superior court case number C1348747, appellant pleaded no contest to vehicle theft with a prior conviction. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)/Pen. Code, § 666.5.) In superior court case number C1358576, appellant pleaded no contest to vehicle theft with a prior conviction (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)/Pen. Code, § 666.5). On December 18, 2013, the trial court sentenced appellant on both cases. The trial court sentenced appellant to a three-year term of imprisonment for the vehicle theft in case number C1348747 and a concurrent three-year term of imprisonment for the vehicle theft in case number C1358576.

On December 11, 2014, appellant filed a petition for Proposition 47 resentencing (Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subd. (b)) in case number C1348747. That same day, appellant filed a petition for Proposition 47 resentencing (Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subd. (b)) in case number C1358576. The petitions requested recall of the felony sentences for the vehicle thefts and misdemeanor resentencing. The trial court denied both of the resentencing petitions on January 12, 2015. In denying the petitions, the trial court explained that appellant was “not eligible” for Proposition 47 resentencing “by virtue of being convicted under Vehicle Code section 10851, a section not covered or contemplated by Proposition 47.” DISCUSSION Appellant contends that the trial court erred in finding him ineligible for Proposition 47 resentencing. His argument is twofold. He first asserts that Proposition 47 “is properly construed as providing for a misdemeanor sentence on a violation of Vehicle Code section 10851 where the value of the vehicle does not exceed $950.” He next asserts that it violates equal protection principles to deny misdemeanor sentencing to a Vehicle Code section 10851 conviction involving “a vehicle costing less than $950.” As explained below, appellant has failed to show error. 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 pertinent part: “Notwithstanding Section 487 or any other provision of law defining grand theft, obtaining any property by theft where the value of the money, labor, real or personal property taken does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars ($950) shall be