People v. Luna CA2/5

Filed 4/18/16 P. v. Luna CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B267976

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA271066) v.

ANDRES LUNA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David R. Fields, Judge. Affirmed. Rich Pfeiffer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Mary Sanchez and Timothy M. Weiner, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Andres Luna appeals an order denying his petition to reduce his 2004 felony conviction for receiving stolen property (Pen. Code § 496, subd. (a))1 to a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47 (§ 1170.18, subd. (f)).2 The trial court denied the petition on the basis that defendant is ineligible for relief due to his later conviction for vehicular manslaughter under section 192, subdivision (c)(1). Defendant contends that vehicular manslaughter is not a disqualifying offense that would preclude, as a matter of law, reduction of his receiving stolen property conviction to a misdemeanor. He further asserts that the case must be remanded because the court did not consider the District Attorney’s argument that he was ineligible to have his felony reduced for failure to establish the value of the stolen property, and the trial court should decide the issue in the first instance. He asks that counsel be appointed, and requests permission to be heard on all issues pertaining to Proposition 47. The Attorney General concedes that the trial court’s reasoning was erroneous, but argues the result reached by the court was correct and the order denying the petition should therefore be affirmed. The Attorney General reasons that defendant did not establish his eligibility under section 1170.18 because he failed to allege or provide any evidence that the value of the stolen property did not exceed $950, as required for reduction from a felony to a misdemeanor. We affirm the court’s order.