People v. Barnes CA6

Filed 3/28/16 P. v. Barnes CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H041943 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1364563)

v.

TIMOTHY BRIAN BARNES,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Timothy Brian Barnes 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. Defendant raises two grounds in support of his argument that he is eligible for resentencing under Proposition 47. First, he contends the offense of receiving a stolen vehicle 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. Second, he 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 September 4, 2013, the prosecution charged defendant by felony complaint with receiving a stolen vehicle—a 1992 Nissan Sentra—under Section 496d. The complaint also alleged defendant had been released on bail at the time he committed the offense, which release had been revoked due to his commission of another felony. (Pen. Code, § 12022.1.) On October 17, 2013, defendant pleaded no contest to the offense as charged and admitted the enhancement allegation. On December 6, 2013, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted a three-year term of formal probation with eight months in county jail as a condition of probation. The court also ordered defendant to pay $580 in restitution to the victim. On December 24, 2014, defendant petitioned the trial court under Proposition 47 to recall his sentence. The trial court denied the petition on the ground that Section 496d was not included in the offenses eligible for resentencing under Proposition 47. The court also rejected defendant’s claim that the denial of his petition would violate his equal protection rights. Defendant appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition. II. DISCUSSION A. Statutory Eligibility for Resentencing under Proposition 47 Defendant contends his conviction for receiving a stolen vehicle under section 496d is eligible for resentencing based on amendments made by Proposition 47 to a closely related section of the Penal Code––section 496, subdivision (a)––which prohibits the receipt of stolen property generally. The Attorney General responds that Proposition 47 did not amend section 496d to make receipt of a stolen vehicle eligible for resentencing.