People v. Piper CA3

Filed 4/12/16 P. v. Piper CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C079172

v. (Super. Ct. Nos. 97F03274, 97F09061) PAUL PIPER,

Defendant and Appellant.

In case No. 97F03274, after defendant Paul Piper pleaded no contest to operating a chop shop and receiving stolen property, the trial court placed him on probation for five years. Later, in case No. 97F09061, defendant pleaded guilty to grand theft and receiving stolen property, and he admitted violating probation in case No. 97F03274. The trial court sentenced defendant in both cases and an unrelated case, imposing a four-year state prison term.

1

Defendant subsequently filed a petition in both cases to redesignate several of his felony convictions as misdemeanors under Proposition 47. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18.)1 The trial court issued two orders (one for each case) without a hearing, ruling that defendant is ineligible for redesignation based on the “current convictions.” One order referenced “car & car parts” and another referenced “chop shop” and “cars.” Defendant now contends (1) the orders should be reversed if the trial court denied relief on the ground that defendant failed in his burden of proof, (2) he is entitled to redesignation of his conviction for grand theft as a matter of equal protection, and (3) the orders should be reversed because they do not contain intelligible findings of fact or conclusions of law, rendering them inadequate for appellate review. We conclude (1) Proposition 47 places the burden of proof on the individual who seeks relief under its provisions, (2) defendant is not entitled to redesignation of his grand theft conviction because he is not similarly situated, and (3) the record is adequate to determine that the trial court did not err in denying the petition. We will affirm the trial court orders. BACKGROUND Officers conducted a welfare check at a home on April 21, 1997. They found a stolen car parked in front of the property. A search of the property also found two stolen trucks, a stolen motorcycle engine, auto parts with the vehicle identification numbers removed, and a chop saw. The officers identified property owned by four different victims at the scene. The only victim to submit information regarding value was the owner of a 1986 Toyota who claimed he bought the vehicle for $5,500. In case No. 97F03274, defendant pleaded no contest to felony operation of a chop shop (Veh. Code, § 10801 -- count one) and felony receiving stolen property (§ 496,