People v. Melvin CA4/3

Filed 6/24/16 P. v. Melvin 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G051362

v. (Super. Ct. No. 05NF4024)

GREGORY MELVIN, JR., OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan S. Fish, Judge. Affirmed. Rex Adam Williams, 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. * * *

Defendant Gregory Melvin, Jr., appeals from the denial of his petition to redesignate two felony convictions as misdemeanors pursuant to Penal Code section 1 1170.18 — enacted as part of Proposition 47, an initiative passed by the voters in November 2014. In 2006, defendant pleaded guilty to a felony violation of section 496d, subdivision (a) (knowingly obtaining stolen vehicle; count 1), and a felony violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) (vehicle taking; count 2). As a factual basis for the plea, defendant stated, “I willfully & unlawfully drove a motor vehicle of another [without] the consent of the owner and possessed a vehicle knowing it to be stolen.” The court stayed imposition of sentence on count 1, and sentenced defendant to two years in state prison on count 2. In 2014 defendant filed an petition pursuant to section 1170.18, subdivision (f), to redesignate his felonies as misdemeanors. The court denied the petition “because of the automobile aspect.” Defendant appealed, contending that automobile theft 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).