People v. Cortinas CA6

Filed 2/23/16 P. v. Cortinas CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H042043 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1370576)

v.

MIGUEL CORTINAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Miguel Cortinas 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, and he alternatively contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the Proposition 47 hearing. BACKGROUND On May 19, 2014, appellant pleaded no contest to buying or receiving a stolen motor vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d),1 and he admitted a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i))/1170.12). On July 14, 2014, the trial court sentenced appellant to 32 months in prison for his offense.

1 The complaint to which appellant pleaded no contest described the vehicle involved in the offense as “a 1992 Honda Accord,” and it asserted that the offense occurred “[o]n or about December 1, 2013.”

On January 8, 2015, appellant filed a petition for Proposition 47 resentencing. The petition requested recall of appellant’s felony sentence and resentencing as a misdemeanor. In support of the petition, appellant submitted a brief that contended that Proposition 47 requires misdemeanor sentencing for violation of Penal Code section 496d where the value of the vehicle “does not exceed $950.” The brief contained no facts or evidence showing that the vehicle involved in appellant’s offense was valued at $950 or less. The trial court held a hearing on appellant’s Proposition 47 petition on February 17, 2015. At the beginning of the hearing, appellant’s counsel stated: “I have submitted a brief about the eligibility of 496d of the Penal Code. [¶] I’m prepared to submit it on the arguments in that brief.” The prosecutor responded by stating that Penal Code section 496d “is ineligible” for Proposition 47 resentencing. The prosecutor additionally argued: “Regardless, the vehicle in this case had a value . . . well over $950. In fact the latest Blue Book shows that the vehicle was worth in the range of 1,300 to $2,100.” Immediately after the prosecutor’s comments, the trial court denied appellant’s Proposition 47 petition. The trial court explained that appellant was “ineligible for the requested relief” because Penal Code section 496d “is not one of the offenses subject to the provisions of” Proposition 47. The trial court also noted that the vehicle involved in appellant’s offense appeared to have a value “in excess of $950.” DISCUSSION Appellant contends that we must reverse the order denying resentencing because the trial court erred in finding him ineligible for Proposition 47 resentencing. Appellant raises three arguments to support his contention that the trial court erred in finding him ineligible for Proposition 47 resentencing: 1) the voters intended that “[Penal Code] section 496d should be considered a misdemeanor . . . as long as the vehicle is worth less than $950,” 2) it violates equal protection principles to deny misdemeanor sentencing to a