People v. Bautista CA3

Filed 6/22/16 P. v. Bautista CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C079778

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 09F3072)

v.

JEANETTE MARIE BAUTISTA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Jeanette Marie Bautista appeals from an order denying her petition for resentencing under Proposition 47. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in ruling she was ineligible for resentencing. We conclude that defendant has failed to meet her burden to show that she is eligible for resentencing and therefore affirm the denial of the petition. I. BACKGROUND On April 17, 2009, at approximately 12:20 a.m., California Highway Patrol Officer Roach conducted a traffic stop on a 2003 Chevrolet Blazer that had been reported

1

stolen by its owner, Victor Zoto. The Blazer was driven by defendant, who provided a false name at the time of arrest. On May 12, 2009, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of felony unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) (section 10851(a)).1 On March 23, 2010, defendant pleaded guilty to violations of Penal Code sections 487, subdivision (c) and 1320, subdivision (b), in two separate cases (Shasta County case Nos. 10F329 & 09F5634). On April 13, 2010, the trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of four years four months for all three cases. On March 16, 2015, defendant filed a form petition to reduce her section 10851(a) conviction to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47. On the form, defendant checked a box indicating, “the total value of the . . . property . . . involved in the specified offense . . . does not exceed $950.” The petition does not contain any other information regarding the value of the car. Two months later, on May 20, 2015, defendant submitted a bench brief arguing, as she does on appeal, that Proposition 47 must be construed as applying to a conviction for unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle in violation of section 10851(a). In the alternative, defendant argued that Proposition 47 violates equal protection. The prosecutor argued that Proposition 47 does not apply to convictions under section 10851(a). The parties’ filings did not address the value of the car. The parties appeared for argument on the petition on May 22, 2015. At the beginning of the hearing, the trial court indicated that its tentative ruling was to deny the petition on the grounds that Proposition 47 does not apply to convictions under section 10851(a). Following a brief discussion of defendant’s equal protection argument, the trial court stated: “The other thing that we haven’t taken up obviously is the fact that I