People v. Haynes CA3

Filed 4/5/16 P. v. Haynes CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C078761

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. CM040346)

v.

PAUL CHRISTOPHER HAYNES,

Defendant and Respondent.

In this case, the People appeal from the trial court’s order granting defendant Paul Christopher Haynes’s resentencing petition (Pen. Code, § 1170.18; unless otherwise set forth, statutory references that follow are to the Penal Code) and reducing his conviction for second degree burglary (§ 459) to shoplifting (§ 459.5). The People contend defendant’s conviction for second degree burglary of a vehicle is not one of the crimes eligible for resentencing. We agree and reverse.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Defendant broke into a locked Honda Civic and took two compact disc cases and miscellaneous charging cables. He pleaded no contest to second degree burglary and was placed on probation. Probation was reinstated after defendant subsequently admitted violating probation. When defendant admitted violating probation a second time, the trial

1

court terminated probation and sentenced defendant to eight months in state prison, to run consecutive to a 16-month term for criminal threats (§ 422) in another case. Defendant filed a petition for resentencing as to his second degree burglary conviction. At the hearing on the petition, the prosecutor asserted that defendant’s conviction was not eligible for resentencing. Defense counsel argued that theft from a vehicle totaling $950 or less was now petty theft under section 490.2 and therefore a misdemeanor. The trial court granted the petition stating that unlawful taking or theft of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851) was not subject to resentencing: “But a simple theft from a vehicle, I don’t see any distinction between theft from a vehicle and theft from someone’s residence.”

DISCUSSION The People contend the trial court erred in granting the petition because burglary of a vehicle is not subject to resentencing pursuant to section 1170.18. We agree. The passage of Proposition 47 created section 1170.18, which provides for any defendant “currently serving a sentence for a conviction . . . of a felony or felonies who would have been guilty of a misdemeanor under [Proposition 47] had [it] been in effect at the time of the offense [to] petition for a recall of sentence before the trial court that entered the judgment of conviction in his or her case to request resentencing . . .” under the statutory framework as amended by the passage of Proposition 47. (§ 1170.18, subd. (a); see Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2014) text of Prop. 47, § 14, pp. 73-74.) Proposition 47 added section 490.2 to the Penal Code which says: “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. . . .” (Emphasis added.)