California Court of Appeal May 6, 2016 No. E063385Unpublished
Filed 5/6/16 P v. Tennyson CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E063385
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1209901)
TREMAINE MARCELL TENNYSON, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky Dugan, Judge.
Affirmed.
Marta I. Stanton, 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, Andrew Mestman and Arlene A.
Sevidal, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Tremaine Marcell Tennyson appeals after the trial court
denied his application for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Defendant was charged by a felony complaint on November 21, 2012, with one
subd. (a), 11377, subds. (a), (b).) The initiative became effective on November 5, 2014.
(Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (a) [“An initiative statute or referendum approved by a
majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure
provides otherwise.”].)
4
II. Defendant Bore the Burden to Establish the Value of the Property Involved
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his petition as to the
receiving stolen property conviction because there was no evidence on the face of the
trial record that the value of the property involved in that charge exceeded $950. He
argues that the prosecution should bear the burden of proof on the issue of the valuation
of the property involved because, in order to achieve the conviction, it was the
prosecution’s burden of proving all elements of the crime, including the value of the
property.
We consider People v. Sherow (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 875 controlling on the
issue. The Sherow court noted that Proposition 47 did not explicitly allocate the burden
of proof on issues such as the value of property involved in a qualifying theft-related
offense. (Id. at p. 878.) However, the court held that “a petitioner for resentencing under
Proposition 47 must establish his or her eligibility for such resentencing. In such cases, it
is important to keep in mind a person . . . was validly convicted under the law applicable
at the time of the trial of the felony offenses. It is a rational allocation of burdens if the
petitioner in such cases bears the burden of showing that he or she is eligible for
resentencing of what was an otherwise valid sentence.” (Ibid.) Allocating the burden of
proof to the petitioner is fair and reasonable because the petitioner knows what property
was involved in the offense (here, receiving stolen property). Defendant, of all people,
knows what stolen property he pleaded guilty to possessing. It is not burdensome to
require him to state, in his petition, his knowledge of the property involved and a fair and
reasonable estimation of its value. A generic statement of belief that the value of the
5
property, not otherwise identified, did not exceed $950, is insufficient to state a prima
facie case of eligibility for resentencing. (See People v. Perkins (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th
129, 136.) “Defendant did not meet his burden in this case. Defendant submitted a form
that asserted he was convicted for receipt of stolen property and that the value of the
property did not exceed $950. But he did not indicate anywhere on the form the factual
basis of his claim regarding the value of the stolen property.” (Id. at p. 137.) For this
reason, the trial court properly denied defendant’s petition for resentencing.
DISPOSITION
We affirm the order denying defendant’s petition for resentencing of his
conviction for receiving stolen property, but without prejudice to consideration of a
subsequent petition that supplies evidence of his eligibility.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER J. We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
CODRINGTON J.
6
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that a petitioner seeking resentencing under Proposition 47 for receiving stolen property bears the burden of establishing eligibility, including proving the value of the property involved did not exceed $950.
Issues
Does the petitioner or the prosecution bear the burden of proving the value of property in a Proposition 47 resentencing petition?
Did the defendant meet his burden of proof to establish eligibility for resentencing?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“a petitioner for resentencing under Proposition 47 must establish his or her eligibility for such resentencing.”
“It is a rational allocation of burdens if the petitioner in such cases bears the burden of showing that he or she is eligible for resentencing of what was an otherwise valid sentence.”