People v. Segundo CA1/3

Filed 12/30/15 P. v. Segundo CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A143929 v. RUBEN SEGUNDO, (Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR271077) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Ruben Segundo appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing under Proposition 47 in which he sought to reduce his felony conviction for receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code,1 § 496d) to a misdemeanor. Because defendant has not met his burden to establish that the value of the stolen vehicle was $950 or less, he is ineligible for relief under Proposition 47. Accordingly, we affirm. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In November 2009, defendant pleaded no contest to one count of receiving a stolen vehicle in violation of section 496d. The vehicle is described in the complaint as a Mercedes Benz. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on three years of formal probation, with the condition that he serve 90 days in county jail. In 2011, the court revoked defendant’s probation and sentenced him to serve two years in state prison.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

In December 2014, defendant filed a petition for recall of his sentence and requested resentencing under section 1170.18, subdivision (a), which was enacted as part of Proposition 47 in 2014. He claimed that he would have been convicted of a misdemeanor instead of a felony if Proposition 47 had been in effect at the time he was convicted. At the hearing on defendant’s petition, the court noted that defendant was not eligible for relief under Proposition 47 because the value of the stolen vehicle exceeded $950. Defendant’s counsel argued that the only factual support for the vehicle’s value, a police report estimating the value at $4,000, was inadmissible hearsay and not part of the record of conviction. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied the petition. Defendant timely appealed. DISCUSSION On appeal, defendant argues that a person convicted of receiving a stolen vehicle under section 496d is eligible for relief under Proposition 47, even though that crime is not listed as one of the theft offenses to which Proposition 47 applies. He also argues that denying relief to a person convicted of receiving a stolen vehicle violates equal protection principles because relief is available to similarly situated persons who receive stolen property other than vehicles. As we explain, even if defendant’s statutory and constitutional arguments were meritorious, he would nonetheless be ineligible for relief under Proposition 47 because he failed to establish that the value of stolen vehicle was $950 or less. In November 2014, California voters enacted Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. (People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1089.) Proposition 47 reduced certain drug or theft offenses to misdemeanors unless an offense was committed by an otherwise ineligible defendant. (Id. at p. 1091.) Among other things, Proposition 47 amended section 496, the statute that makes it a crime to receive stolen property, to provide that the offense is a misdemeanor “if the value of the property does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars ($950),” unless the offense was committed by a defendant who was required to register as a sex offender (§ 290) or had previously been convicted of one or more serious or violent felonies listed in section 667, subdivision