California Court of Appeal Feb 2, 2016 No. E063471Unpublished
Filed 2/2/16 P. v. States 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E063471
v. (Super.Ct.No. FVI1303081)
CHARLES LEWIS STATES, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Miriam Ivy
Morton, Judge. Affirmed.
Valerie G. Wass for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Eric A. Swenson,
Lynne G. McGinnis and Kristine A. Gutierrez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff
and Respondent.
Defendant Charles Lewis States pleaded guilty to unlawfully taking or driving a
vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) (section 10851(a)).
1
Thereafter, Proposition 47 went into effect. Proposition 47 allows certain defendants
convicted of specified theft or drug-related felonies to petition to have those convictions
theft with a prior, lists “auto theft under Section 10851(a)” as one of the prior convictions
6
that elevate a petty theft to a wobbler. (Pen. Code, § 666, subd. (a).) He also notes that
Proposition 47 amended section 666. He then argues that this shows that it was the intent
of Proposition 47 to treat a violation of section 10851(a) as theft. However, the words
“auto theft under Section 10851(a)” long predate Proposition 47. As defendant admits,
they were added to section 666 in 1986. (Stats. 1986, ch. 402, § 1, p. 1622.) Thus, they
shed no light on the intent behind Proposition 47.
Finally, defendant relies on certain uncodified findings and declarations in
Proposition 47. Section 2 states that Proposition 47 was enacted, in part, “to maximize
alternatives for nonserious, nonviolent crime . . . .” (Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec.
(Nov. 4, 2014) Text of Proposed Laws, p. 70.) Section 3 states: “In enacting this act, it
is the purpose and intent of the people of the State of California to: [¶] . . . [¶] . . .
Require misdemeanors instead of felonies for nonserious, nonviolent crimes like petty
theft and drug possession . . . .” (Ibid.) Section 15 states: “This act shall be broadly
construed to accomplish its purposes.” (Id. at p. 74.) And section 18 states: “This act
shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes.” (Ibid.) “However, [a] rule of
liberal construction . . . should not be used to defeat the overall statutory framework and
fundamental rules of statutory construction.” (Nickelsberg v. Workers' Comp. Appeals
Bd. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 288, 298; see also People v. Jernigan (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1198,
1207 [“The voters mandated that Proposition 36 be liberally construed . . . . It is
established, nonetheless, that in interpreting a voter initiative, we apply well-settled rules
of statutory construction.”].)
7
Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court was correct: Proposition 47 does not
allow a defendant who has served a sentence for unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle
in violation of section 10851(a) to petition to have that conviction reduced to a
misdemeanor.
C. Equal Protection.
Defendant also contends that, if Proposition 47 does not apply to a conviction for
unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle in violation of section 10851(a), it violates equal
protection.
Defendant forfeited this contention by failing to raise it below. (People v.
Alexander (2010) 49 Cal.4th 846, 880, fn. 14.)
Separately and alternatively, we also reject this contention on the merits.
Applying rational basis scrutiny, the California Supreme Court has held that “neither the
existence of two identical criminal statutes prescribing different levels of punishments,
nor the exercise of a prosecutor’s discretion in charging under one such statute and not
the other, violates equal protection principles.” (People v. Wilkinson (2004) 33 Cal.4th
821, 838.) Similarly, it has long been the case that “a car thief may not complain because
he may have been subjected to imprisonment for more than 10 years for grand theft of an
automobile [citations] when, under the same facts, he might have been subjected to no
more than 5 years under the provisions of section 10851[(a)] of the Vehicle Code.”
(People v. Romo (1975) 14 Cal.3d 189, 197.) The same reasoning applies to Proposition
47’s provision for the possibility of sentence reduction for a limited subset of those
8
previously convicted of grand theft (those who stole an automobile or other personal
property valued $950 or less), but not those convicted of unlawfully taking or driving a
vehicle in violation of section 10851(a). Absent a showing that a particular defendant
“‘has been singled out deliberately for prosecution on the basis of some invidious
criterion,’ . . . the defendant cannot make out an equal protection violation.” (Wilkinson,
supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 839.) Defendant here has made no such showing.
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS RAMIREZ P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER J.
CODRINGTON J.
9
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. A conviction for unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle under Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) is not eligible for reduction to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47.
Issues
Whether a conviction under Vehicle Code section 10851(a) qualifies for reduction to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47.
Whether the exclusion of Vehicle Code section 10851(a) from Proposition 47 relief violates equal protection principles.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Proposition 47 does not allow a defendant who has served a sentence for unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle in violation of section 10851(a) to petition to have that conviction reduced to a misdemeanor.”
“Section 10851(a) is not a “provision of law defining grand theft.” Thus, section 490.2 does not override section 10851(a).”