People v. Salgado CA4/3

Filed 12/8/15 P. v. Salgado CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G051358

v. (Super. Ct. No. 12WF1843)

MARIO SALGADO, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan S. Fish, Judge. Affirmed. Susan S. Bauguess, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Christen Somerville, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Mario Salgado appeals an order denying his petition for resentencing under Proposition 47. Although he was not convicted of an offense that qualifies him for resentencing, he contends equal protection principles require that his offense be treated as such. We disagree and affirm the trial court’s order. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2012, Salgado was charged in a felony complaint with unlawfully taking a vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a).1 He was also alleged to have suffered two prior strike convictions and served a prior prison term. Before the preliminary hearing, Salgado pleaded guilty and admitted the prison prior in exchange for dismissal of his prior strikes and a 16-month sentence. As part of his plea agreement, Salgado admitted he “unlawfully drove a 1996 Honda Civic without the consent of the owner and with the intent to temporarily deprive the owner of possession.” However, there is nothing in the record indicating how much the vehicle was worth. On the heels of Proposition 47’s passage in November 2014, Salgado petitioned the trial court to reduce his felony conviction to a misdemeanor and resentence him accordingly. Although Proposition 47 does not apply to violations of section 10851, Salgado argued his conviction fell within the scope of the initiative because the value of the car he took did not exceed $950. Alternatively, Salgado argued he was entitled to Proposition 47 relief as a matter of equal protection. The trial court denied his petition. DISCUSSION Appellant renews his claims regarding the scope of Proposition 47 and his entitlement to equal protection under the law. However, we discern no basis for disturbing the trial court’s ruling. “Proposition 47 reclassifies as misdemeanors certain non-serious, nonviolent crimes that previously were felonies, and authorizes trial courts to consider