People v. Buckins CA6

Filed 12/8/15 P. v. Buckins CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H042009 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. CC199875)

v.

DARRELL EDWARD BUCKINS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Darrell Edward Buckins appeals from on order denying his Proposition 47 petition for designation of his Vehicle Code section 10851 conviction as a misdemeanor. On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in finding him ineligible for Proposition 47 relief. BACKGROUND An information, filed on June 7, 2001, charged appellant with theft or unauthorized use of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). Appellant pleaded no contest to that charge on July 30, 2001. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation, but appellant violated the terms of his probation. On July 24, 2003, the trial court sentenced appellant to 16 months in prison. On December 4, 2014, appellant filed a Proposition 47 petition for designation of his conviction as a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subd. (f)). The trial court denied the petition on February 3, 2015. In denying the petition, the trial court stated that

appellant was ineligible for the requested relief because “Proposition 47 does not affect convictions under Vehicle Code section 10851.” DISCUSSION Appellant contends that the trial court erred in finding him ineligible for Proposition 47 relief. 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 designation to a Vehicle Code section 10851 conviction involving “a vehicle costing 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 (Rivera).) 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 considered petty theft and shall be punished as a misdemeanor . . . .” (Pen. Code, § 490.2, subd. (a).) Penal Code section 1170.18, which was also added by Proposition 47, “provides that persons who have completed felony sentences for offenses that would now be misdemeanors under Proposition 47 may file an application with the trial court to have their felony convictions ‘designated as misdemeanors.’ [Citation.]” (Rivera, supra, 233 Cal.App.4th at p. 1093.) As relevant here, Penal Code section 1170.18 provides: “A person who has completed his or her sentence for a conviction, whether by trial or plea,