California Court of Appeal Dec 22, 2015 No. E063492Unpublished
Filed 12/22/15 P. v. Hernandez CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E063492
v. (Super.Ct.No. SWF1400678)
AARON ALEXANDER HERNANDEZ, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Judith C. Clark, Judge.
Affirmed.
Thea Greenhalgh, 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, A. Natasha Cortina, and Michael
Pulos, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Aaron Alexander Hernandez pled guilty to one felony
count of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a), count 1) and admitted a
Cal.App.4th 1273, 1277 [“The prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond a
reasonable doubt that a defendant’s prior convictions were for either serious or violent
felonies”].) As a result, any failure of evidence defeats the ability of the prosecution to
6
meet its burden to show the prior offense was subject to greater punishment, triggering an
enhancement. Here, as we have discussed, the defendant is seeking relief and the
defendant therefore must carry the burden of showing eligibility. In that setting, the
failure of proof cuts against defendant.
Defendant contends People v. Bradford (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1322 supports
relieving him of the burden of proof. We disagree. In Bradford, the Third District held
that under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 the prosecution was not permitted to go
outside the record of conviction to establish a defendant is ineligible for resentencing on
the basis of the nature of his conviction. (People v. Bradford, supra, at p. 1339.) The
Bradford court did not relieve the defendant of his burden of presenting evidence to
support his petition. On the contrary, the court indicated “the petitioner would be well
advised to address eligibility concerns in the initial petition for resentencing.” (Id. at
p. 1341.) Here, defendant did not raise such issues and did not offer testimony or other
evidence concerning the value of the stolen property. (Sherow, supra, 239 Cal.App.4th at
p. 880.) “A proper petition could certainly contain at least [petitioner’s] testimony about
the nature of the items taken. If he made the initial showing the court [could] take such
action as appropriate to grant the petition or permit further factual determination.” (Ibid.)
Without such a showing, the trial court did not err in deciding that defendant had not
established his eligibility for resentencing.
7
III
DISPOSITION
We affirm the order denying defendant’s petition for resentencing.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ P. J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST J.
McKINSTER J.
8
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. A defendant seeking resentencing under Proposition 47 for receiving stolen property bears the burden of proving that the value of the stolen property did not exceed $950.
Issues
Does a defendant have the burden of proving the value of stolen property is $950 or less to qualify for resentencing under Proposition 47?
Does the presumption of the 'least offense punishable' apply to a defendant's petition for resentencing under Proposition 47 when the record of conviction is silent on property value?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“a petitioner for resentencing under Proposition 47 must establish his or her eligibility for such resentencing.”
“Where, as in this case, the critical factual issue is the value of stolen property, defendant must “show the property loss . . . did not exceed $950.””
“In that setting, the failure of proof cuts against defendant.”