People v. Fuentes CA4/3

Filed 4/21/16 P. v. Fuentes 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G051349

v. (Super. Ct. No. 12WF3040)

DANIEL FUENTES, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan S. Fish, Judge. Affirmed. Paul Kleven, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina, Alastair J. Agcaoili and Parag Agrawal, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

This case presents an issue that is currently pending in the California Supreme Court: Does Proposition 47 apply to the crime of unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle in Vehicle Code section 10851? Assuming it does, appellant has failed to satisfy the criteria for obtaining Proposition 47 relief. We therefore affirm the trial court’s order denying appellant’s request to reduce his felony conviction to a misdemeanor. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In November 2012, appellant was charged in a felony complaint with one count of unlawfully taking or driving a “2002 Toyota Sierra” in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a).1 The complaint also alleged appellant committed two misdemeanors by driving under the influence of alcohol and with a blood-alcohol content of .08 percent or more. In pleading guilty to charges, appellant admitted he “unlawfully drove a car [he] knew was stolen . . . while under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol level above .20%.” Thereupon, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation. Two years later, following the passage of Proposition 47, appellant petitioned the trial court to reduce his felony conviction to a misdemeanor. Although Proposition 47 does not expressly apply to violations of section 10851, appellant argued the initiative was applicable to him to the extent it made the theft of property valued at $950 or less a misdemeanor. Appellant also claimed he was entitled to Proposition 47 relief as a matter of equal protection. The court denied his petition. DISCUSSION Appellant renews his claims regarding the scope of Proposition 47 and his entitlement to equal protection under the law. However, we discern no basis for disturbing the trial court’s ruling.