People v. Ramos CA4/3

Filed 5/31/16 P. v. Ramos 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G051359

v. (Super. Ct. No. 11CF1509)

MANUEL GARCIA RAMOS, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan S. Fish, Judge. Affirmed. Alissa Bjerkhoel, 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, Arlene A. Sevidal and Minh U. Le, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Manuel Garcia Ramos appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing relief under Proposition 47. He contends the trial court erred in finding his conviction for receiving a stolen vehicle is outside the scope of the initiative, but we disagree and affirm the order. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2011, appellant was charged in a felony complaint with receiving a stolen vehicle in violation of Penal Code section 496d.1 It was also alleged he had served two prior prison terms. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) As part of a plea agreement, appellant admitted the charges, and one of the prison priors was dismissed. The factual basis for the plea states appellant “did knowingly & unlawfully buy/receive/conceal/sell/withhold a Honda Accord which [he] knew to be stolen.” The trial court sentenced appellant to a two-year prison term, to be served concurrently with a sentence he received in another case. Following the passage of Proposition 47 in November 2014, appellant petitioned the trial court to have his conviction reduced to a misdemeanor. Although Proposition 47 does not expressly apply to violations of section 496d, 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 see no basis for disturbing the trial court’s ruling. “Proposition 47 reclassifie[d] as misdemeanors certain non-serious, nonviolent crimes that previously were felonies, and authorizes trial courts to consider