People v. Mendoza CA4/3

Filed 6/24/16 P. v. Mendoza 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G051361

v. (Super. Ct. No. 13CF2468)

ARTURO GOMEZ MENDOZA, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan S. Fish, Judge. Affirmed. John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Anthony Da Silva and Peter Quon, Jr., Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Defendant Arturo Gomez Mendoza appeals from the denial of his petition 1 for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18, subdivision (a) — enacted as part of Proposition 47, an initiative passed by the voters in November 2014. In September 2013, defendant pleaded guilty to a felony taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 1), receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a); count 2), possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd (a); count 3), and possession of heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a); count 4). In late 2014 defendant applied to have all four counts resentenced as misdemeanors pursuant to section 1170.18, subdivision (a). The People opposed the petition only as to count 1 on the ground that a violation of Vehicle Code section 10851 is outside the scope of the resentencing provision. The court granted the petition as to counts 2 through 4. But denied the petition as to count 1. Defendant appealed, contending that Vehicle Code section 10851 falls within the scope of section 1170.18. This issue has generated conflicting opinions in the Court of Appeal, and it is currently before the California Supreme Court. We need not address it, however, because even assuming automobile theft can be treated as petty theft pursuant to section 490.2, subdivision (a), if the value of the vehicle is $950 or less, defendant failed to produce evidence of the value of the vehicle, and thus failed to demonstrate his eligibility for relief under section 1170.18, subdivision (f).