California Court of Appeal Feb 17, 2016 No. E062513Unpublished
Filed 2/17/16 P. v. Long 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E062513
v. (Super.Ct.No. FVA1400030)
MICHAEL RIDDELL LONG, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Smith,
Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Correen W. Ferrentino, 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, Arlene A. Sevidal, Collette
Cavalier, Elizabeth M. Carino and Christopher P. Beesley, Deputy Attorneys General, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Michael Riddell Long appeals from the trial court’s order
denying his Proposition 47 petition seeking to reduce his felony conviction for buying or
receiving a stolen vehicle under Penal Code1 section 496d, subdivision (a) to a
misdemeanor under section 1170.18. For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm the
judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 6, 2014, a felony complaint charged defendant with evading a police
officer under Vehicle Code section 2800.2, subdivision (a) (count 1); unlawfully taking a
vehicle under Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) (count 2); and buying or
receiving a stolen vehicle under Penal Code section 496d, subdivision (a) (count 3). The
complaint also alleged three prior prison commitments pursuant to Penal Code section
667.5, subdivision (b).
Defendant pled guilty to count 3 (buying or receiving a stolen motor vehicle), and
admitted the truth of a strike prior conviction.2 In exchange, the remaining counts and
allegations were dismissed, and the trial court sentenced defendant to 16 months in state
prison.
On November 7, 2014, defendant filed a petition under Proposition 47 seeking to
reduce his felony conviction to a misdemeanor under section 1170.18. The trial court
found, and defense counsel agreed, that defendant was ineligible for relief under
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
2 Defendant simultaneously entered a guilty plea and admitted a strike prior in another case, No. FVA1301378. The trial court imposed the strike prior in that case.
2
Proposition 47 because defendant’s conviction for buying or receiving a stolen motor
vehicle did not meet the criteria under section 1170.18. The court, therefore, denied
defendant’s request. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Defendant makes a single claim on appeal: He contends that the omission of
section 496d, subdivision (a), from Proposition 47 violates the Equal Protection Clause of
the California Constitution. Specifically, defendant claims that Proposition 47 violates
his equal protection rights because it treats similarly situated groups—defendants
convicted under section 487, subdivision (d)(1) (auto theft), and section 496, subdivision
(a)—differently than those convicted of section 496d. We disagree.
A. Overview of Proposition 47
On November 4, 2014, California voters approved Proposition 47, the “Safe
Neighborhoods and Schools Act.” In sum, Proposition 47: (1) requires a misdemeanor
sentence instead of a felony sentence for certain drug possession offenses; (2) requires a
misdemeanor sentence instead of a felony sentence for the crimes of petty theft, receiving
stolen property, and forging/writing bad checks, when the amount involved is $950 or
less; (3) allows a felony sentence (excluding a defendant from a misdemeanor sentence)
for the crimes specified above if a defendant has a prior conviction listed under Penal
Code section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(C)(iv), or a prior conviction for an offense requiring
sex offender registration under Penal Code section 290; and (4) requires resentencing for
defendants serving felony sentences for the crimes specified above unless the trial court
finds an unreasonable public safety risk. (Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4,
3
2014) Official Title and Summary, pp. 34, 70; see, e.g., Pen. Code, §§ 459.5, subd. (a),
Holding. The court held that the defendant failed to establish an equal protection violation because he did not demonstrate that he was similarly situated to offenders eligible for Proposition 47 relief, specifically failing to prove the stolen vehicle's value was $950 or less.
Issues
Does the exclusion of Penal Code section 496d, subdivision (a) from Proposition 47 violate the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution?
Does a defendant have the burden to prove the value of stolen property is $950 or less to qualify for resentencing under Proposition 47?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The list does not include section 496d—buying or receiving a stolen motor vehicle.”
“To prove an equal protection violation, defendant must first demonstrate that he is in a class of offenders against whom Proposition 47 discriminates. Defendant has failed to establish this.”
“Because the value of the stolen vehicle is unknown, defendant has failed to demonstrate that he is in a class of persons with whom he argues receive unequal treatment”