People v. Rodriguez CA6

Filed 2/22/16 P. v. Rodriguez CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H042101 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1244101)

v.

JUAN RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Juan Rodriguez appeals from an order denying his petition for Proposition 47 resentencing. On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in ruling that he was ineligible for Proposition 47 relief. BACKGROUND On February 28, 2013, appellant pleaded no contest to theft or unauthorized use of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and admitted one prior strike (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)/1170.12). On May 2, 2013, the trial court sentenced appellant to 32 months in prison. On December 23, 2014, appellant filed a petition for Proposition 47 resentencing. The trial court denied the petition on February 23, 2015. In denying the petition, the trial court stated that appellant was ineligible for resentencing because a violation of Vehicle Code section 10851 “is not one that is subject to the resentencing provisions” of Proposition 47.

DISCUSSION Appellant contends that the trial court erred in ruling that he was ineligible for Proposition 47 resentencing. His argument is twofold. He first asserts that voters “intended that violations of Vehicle Code section 10851 be included in the reforms of Proposition 47” where the value of the vehicle involved in the offense “does not exceed $950.” (Capitalization omitted.) He next asserts that it violates equal protection principles to deny Proposition 47 relief to a Vehicle Code section 10851 conviction involving a “vehicle of value less than $950.” As set forth below, we must affirm. On November 4, 2014, the voters enacted Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. (People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1089.) Proposition 47 “reduced the penalties for a number of offenses.” (People v. Sherow (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 875, 879 (Sherow)). Appellant’s argument relies on Penal Code section 490.2, which was added by Proposition 47. Penal Code section 490.2, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part: “Notwithstanding Section 487 or any other provision of law defining grand theft, obtaining any property by theft where the value of the money, labor, real or personal property taken does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars ($950) shall be considered petty theft and shall be punished as a misdemeanor . . . .” Penal Code section 1170.18, which was also added by Proposition 47, “creates a process where persons previously convicted of crimes as felonies, which would be misdemeanors under the new definitions in Proposition 47, may petition for resentencing.” (Sherow, supra, 239 Cal.App.4th at p. 879.) Penal Code section 1170.18, subdivision (a) specifies that a person may petition for resentencing in accordance with Penal Code section 490.2 “[A] petitioner for resentencing under Proposition 47 must establish his or her eligibility for such resentencing.” (Sherow, supra, 239 Cal.App.4th at p. 878.) The