People v. Bazley CA6

Filed 5/17/16 P. v. Bazley CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H041964 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. Nos. 114129 & 114130)

v.

MICHAEL BAZLEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Michael Bazley appeals from an order denying his request for Proposition 47 relief. On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying misdemeanor designation for his access card forgery conviction. BACKGROUND A complaint, filed on May 5, 1987, charged appellant with access card forgery (Pen. Code, § 484f, former subd. (2)). The complaint alleged that the offense was committed in the following manner: “The said defendant[] with the intent to defraud San Jose Towing, did sign the name of another, without authorization by the cardholder, to an access card, sales slip, sales draft and instrument for the payment of money which evidenced an access card transaction.” (Capitalization omitted.)

On May 27, 1987, appellant pleaded guilty to the offense charged in the complaint. The trial court sentenced appellant to a two-year prison term for the offense.1 On December 17, 2014, appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court, in which he requested to have his access card forgery conviction reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47. The trial court construed the petition for writ of habeas corpus as “a petition for redesignation brought under the authority of Penal Code § 1170.18(f).” On December 18, 2014, the trial court denied Proposition 47 relief, ruling that appellant’s access card forgery conviction was ineligible for designation as a misdemeanor. The trial court explained: “[Appellant] is not entitled to relief because the forgery of an access or credit card is not among the seven items specified in Penal Code § 473(b) (check, bond, bank bill, note, cashier’s check, traveler’s check, or money order).” (Italics in original.) DISCUSSION Appellant urges us to reverse the order denying Proposition 47 relief, arguing that the trial court erred in refusing to grant him such relief. His argument is twofold. He first asserts that he was eligible to have his access card forgery conviction designated as a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 473, subdivision (b). He next asserts that it violates equal protection principles to exclude his access card forgery conviction from misdemeanor designation. As explained below, we must affirm. Legal Principles: Proposition 47 On November 4, 2014, the voters enacted Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. (People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1089 (Rivera).) Proposition 47 “reduced the penalties for a number of offenses.” (People v. Sherow