California Court of Appeal May 6, 2016 No. E063679Unpublished
Filed 5/6/16 P. v. Randolph 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E063679
v. (Super.Ct.No. FVI07343)
RAYMOND LEROY RANDOLPH, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Miriam Morton,
Judge. Affirmed.
Charles R. Khoury, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General,
and Charles C. Ragland, Scott C. Taylor and Kristen Hernandez, Deputy Attorneys
General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Raymond Leroy Randolph appeals from the denial of his petition under
Proposition 47 and Penal Code section 1170.18 to reduce his conviction of unlawful
driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) to misdemeanor petty theft
fall within the ambit of Proposition 47; (2) equal protection principles require treating a
Vehicle Code section 10851 conviction the same as grand theft auto under Penal Code
section 487, subdivision (d)(1); (3) ascertainment of the value of property is limited to the
record of conviction; (4) the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the value of
personal property taken exceeded $950; and (5) the valuation of the loss for a temporary
taking of an automobile should be measured by the amount of compensation to make the
victim whole rather than the market value of the vehicle.1 We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On January 2, 1998, defendant was charged with unlawful driving or taking of a
vehicle, a 1968 Honda Trail 50. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) Defendant entered a
plea of guilty to the charge. Defendant was sentenced to felony probation on the
condition he serve 120 days in county jail.
1 This court has reviewed defendant’s request for judicial notice filed February 8, 2016, and the People’s opposition filed February 22, 2016. The People’s opposition correctly notes that there is no indication the police report was ever presented to the trial court and, therefore, the request for judicial notice is denied.
2
On April 22, 2015, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code
section 1170.18. The trial court denied the petition on the ground that a violation of
Vehicle Code section 10851 does not qualify for such relief.
DISCUSSION
Applicability of Proposition 47 to Vehicle Code Section 10851 Offenses
Penal Code section 1170.l8, subdivision (a), lists the offenses for which relief may
be appropriate. Vehicle Code section 10851 is not one of the listed offenses. Defendant
nonetheless contends that because Vehicle Code section 10851 is a theft offense, and
Penal Code section 1170.18 explicitly applies to theft offenses through Penal Code
section 490.2 when the value of the property taken is less than $950, Penal Code section
1170.18 must also apply to violations of Vehicle Code section 10851. That issue is
presently before the California Supreme Court. (See People v. Page (2015) 241
absolutely no evidence that his violation of Vehicle Code section 10851 involved the
intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession of the vehicle or the value of the
vehicle. As discussed ante, this evidence was crucial to establishing that defendant was
eligible for resentencing. As such, since defendant failed to meet his burden, the trial
court could deny the Petition on this ground.
MILLER J.
6
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that a conviction for unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle under Vehicle Code section 10851 does not qualify for resentencing under Proposition 47 (Penal Code section 1170.18).
Issues
Whether Vehicle Code section 10851 offenses fall within the scope of Proposition 47.
Whether equal protection principles require treating Vehicle Code section 10851 convictions the same as grand theft auto under Penal Code section 487.
Disposition. Affirmed.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Vehicle Code section 10851 does not proscribe theft of either the grand or petty variety, but rather the taking or driving of a vehicle “with or without intent to steal.””
“Thus, we conclude Penal Code section 490.2 is simply inapplicable to defendant’s conviction offense.”
“It is simply not our role to interpose additional changes to the Penal Code or Vehicle Code beyond those expressed in the plain language of the additions or amendments resulting from the adoption of Proposition 47.”