People v. Brown CA2/8

Filed 1/29/16 P. v. Brown CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B262343

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA131437) v.

INDIA MONAE BROWN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Eleanor J. Hunter, Judge. Affirmed.

Emily Lowther, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Mary Sanchez and Viet H. Nguyen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________________

India Monae Brown filed a petition for resentencing under Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhood and Schools Act. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18; hereafter Proposition 47 or the Act). The trial court denied the petition. We affirm. FACTS On June 4, 2014, Brown pled nolo contendere to a felony count of receiving stolen property in violation of Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a).1 On November 4, 2014, the voters of California passed Proposition 47. The Act went into effect the next day. (Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (a).) As relevant here, Proposition 47 reduced certain felony offenses to misdemeanors and enacted a resentencing provision –– section 1170.18 –– under which persons currently serving a felony sentence for an offense that is today a misdemeanor may file a petition to be resentenced for the misdemeanor offense. The offense of receiving stolen property is amenable to such Proposition 47 treatment, provided the value of the property taken does not exceed $950. On February 24, 2015, Brown filed a proposition 47 petition in the trial court to be resentenced as a misdemeanant on her receiving stolen property conviction. The District Attorney alleged Brown was ineligible for relief because the value of property exceeded $950. The trial court denied Brown’s petition after reviewing the preliminary hearing transcript, stating: “I think the spirit of Prop 47, if the property is below a certain amount, then it would fall under that. I don’t think Ms. Brown falls into that category.” Read in context, the court’s statement must be interpreted to mean that it was making a factual finding, based on the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing, that the value of the property involved in Brown’s crime exceeded the $950 threshold for Proposition 47’s reclassification of her felony to a misdemeanor. The court did not make any express statements about whether it had placed the burden of proof on Brown to establish that the value of the property was less than $950. However, we find it safe to conclude from the