People v. Ramirez CA6

Filed 3/28/16 P. v. Ramirez CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H042374 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1484940)

v.

DAVID ANTHONY RAMIREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant David Anthony Ramirez appeals from the denial of his petition for resentencing under Proposition 47. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18.)1 Defendant contends Proposition 47 makes him eligible for resentencing on his conviction for receiving a stolen vehicle under section 496d. The trial court denied the petition on the ground that a conviction under section 496d does not meet Proposition 47’s eligibility criteria as a matter of law. In support of his claim that he is eligible for resentencing, defendant contends the offense of receiving a stolen vehicle worth $950 or less was implicitly included in Proposition 47’s amendment of section 496, subdivision (a), which makes the receipt of stolen property valued at $950 or less punishable as a misdemeanor. He also contends that the denial of his petition for resentencing violated his equal protection rights.

1 Subsequent undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

This court recently considered and rejected these arguments in People v. Nichols (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 681 (Nichols). For the reasons set forth in Nichols, we find defendant’s claims without merit. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment. I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 On June 9, 2014, the prosecution charged defendant by an amended felony complaint (the operative charging document) alleging that defendant committed the following offenses on October 25, 2013: Count One—Participating in a criminal street gang (§186.22, subd. (a)); Count Two—Receiving a stolen motor vehicle, a 1995 Honda Accord (§ 496d); Count Three—Misdemeanor possession of a dirk or dagger (§ 21310); Count Four—Misdemeanor possession of ammunition by a prohibited person (§30305, subd. (a)(1)); Count Five—Possession of burglar tools (§ 466); and Count Six— Misdemeanor resisting, delaying, or obstructing a police officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). As to Count Two, the complaint alleged defendant had suffered a prior conviction for theft of a motor vehicle under Vehicle Code section 10851. (§ 666.5.) The complaint further alleged defendant had suffered: (1) two prior convictions for assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer, constituting serious or violent felonies (§§ 667.5, subd. (c), 1192.7, subd. (c)); (2) a prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer, constituting a serious felony (§§ 667, subd. (a), 1192.7); and (3) two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). On July 1, 2014, in accord with a plea agreement, defendant pleaded no contest to Counts Two through Six and admitted all enhancements. On Count Two, the court imposed a total term of four years, equal to double the mitigated term of two years. On Counts Three through Six, the court imposed 60 days in county jail on each count, all concurrent with the term on Count Two. The court dismissed Count One and struck the punishment for the two prior prison terms.