People v. Murphy CA4/3

Filed 6/17/16 P. v. Murphy 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G051941

v. (Super. Ct. No. 10WF0128)

JOEL ALEXANDER MURPHY, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Thomas A. Glazier, Judge. Affirmed. Susan S. Bauguess, 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, Charles C. Ragland and Marvin E. Mizell, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant was found ineligible for Proposition 47 relief on the basis he had previously sustained a conviction for vehicular manslaughter. Appellant admits vehicular manslaughter is a disqualifying offense for purposes of Proposition 47. But because his conviction for that offense arose after the conviction which was the subject of his Proposition 47 petition he contends the trial court erred in denying his petition. We disagree and affirm the trial court’s ruling. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2010, appellant pleaded guilty to felony drug possession (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350) and two misdemeanor charges. The trial court deferred entry of judgment on condition appellant complete a drug treatment program. When appellant failed to complete the program, the court placed him on three years’ probation. Appellant’s performance on probation was abysmal. In 2011, he admitted violating probation and served 90 days in jail. Then, in June of 2012, he was charged with several crimes, including gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated in violation of Penal Code section 191.5.1 Appellant pleaded guilty to, and was sentenced to prison for, that offense in February 2013. Following the passage of Proposition 47 in the fall of 2014, appellant petitioned the trial court to reduce his drug conviction to a misdemeanor. However, the court found appellant was ineligible for Proposition 47 relief due to his conviction for vehicular manslaughter. It therefore denied his petition. DISCUSSION Appellant contends the trial court’s ruling was erroneous because his vehicular manslaughter conviction arose after his drug conviction. However, the order of appellant’s convictions is immaterial. Because he had a disqualifying conviction at the time he filed his Proposition 47 petition, the trial court properly denied his petition.