People v. McCutchan CA4/3

Filed 6/7/16 P. v. McCutchan 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G051920

v. (Super. Ct. No. 14NF2366)

LISA MARIE McCUTCHAN, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Thomas A. Glazier, Judge. Affirmed. Jason L. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Kristen Kinnaird Chenelia, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Lisa Marie McCutchan appeals from an order denying her petition for relief under Proposition 47. She contends the trial court erred in finding her convictions for unlawfully acquiring or retaining access card information were outside the scope of the initiative, but we disagree and affirm the order. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In June 2014, appellant pleaded guilty to 12 criminal charges, including two counts of felony acquisition or retention of access card information under Penal Code section 484e, subdivision (d) (section 484e(d)).1 Imposition of sentence was suspended, and the court placed appellant on probation for five years. Following the passage of Proposition 47 in November 2014, appellant petitioned the trial court to have her section 484e(d) convictions reduced to misdemeanors. Although Proposition 47 does not expressly apply to violations of section 484e(d), appellant argued the initiative was applicable to her because she charged less than $950 on her victims’ access cards.2 Appellant also argued she was entitled to Proposition 47 relief as a matter of equal protection. The trial court denied her petition. DISCUSSION Appellant renews her claims regarding the scope of Proposition 47 and her entitlement to equal protection under the law. We agree with the trial court; there is no reason to disturb its ruling. “Proposition 47 reclassifie[d] as misdemeanors certain non-serious, nonviolent crimes that previously were felonies, and authorizes trial courts to consider resentencing anyone who is currently serving a sentence for any of the listed offenses.” (People v. Awad (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 215, 218.) The crime of unlawfully acquiring