People v. Bartlett CA4/3

Filed 4/12/16 P. v. Bartlett CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G051340

v. (Super. Ct. No. 14NF3896)

ROBERT JAMES BARTLETT, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan S. Fish, Judge. Affirmed. John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Daniel Hilton, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

INTRODUCTION Defendant Robert James Bartlett appeals from the order denying his petition under Penal Code section 1170.18 for, inter alia, the reduction of his felony conviction for second degree vehicle burglary to a misdemeanor. (All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.) Bartlett argues that his conviction for vehicle burglary falls within the felony offenses that qualify for reduction to misdemeanors by the passage of the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (Proposition 47). He also argues the denial of his petition under the new statutory scheme violates his right to equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We affirm. For the reasons we will explain, Proposition 47 does not apply to vehicle burglary in violation of section 459. Section 459 is not included in the list of statutes contained in section 1170.18, defining felonies that qualify for redesignation as misdemeanors. Vehicle burglary does not constitute a theft-related offense within the meaning of section 490.2 and thus does not qualify for redesignation to a misdemeanor under that statute either. We reject Bartlett’s equal protection argument because he has failed to show he is similarly situated to the class of persons convicted of stealing a vehicle valued at no more than $950, who might qualify to have their felony convictions redesignated as misdemeanors under Proposition 47. Bartlett has not carried his burden of showing the property that he stole in the course of committing the vehicle burglary offense had a value of no more than $950.