People v. Stephens CA4/3

Filed 7/19/16 P. v. Stephens 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G051355

v. (Super. Ct. No. 12CF0034)

JUSTIN DAVID JOHN STEPHENS, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan S. Fish, Judge. Affirmed. Jeanine G. Strong, 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, A. Natasha Cortina, Meagan J. Beale and Parag Agrawal, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Justin David John Stephens appeals from a postjudgment order denying his 1 petition to have his felony conviction for receiving a stolen car (Pen. Code, § 496d), redesignated a misdemeanor pursuant to section 1170.18. Stephens argues that because the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2014) text of Prop. 47, § 14; Proposition 47), which enacted section 1170.18, also mandated that the theft or receipt of property worth less than $950 be designated a misdemeanor, it would be a denial of equal protection to maintain felony status for the crime of merely receiving a stolen vehicle worth less than $950. 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 receiving a stolen car having a value of $950 or less can be treated as petty theft pursuant to section 490.2, subdivision (a), or a misdemeanor offense pursuant to section 496, Stephens 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). Consequently, we affirm the postjudgment order without prejudice to subsequent 2 consideration of a properly filed petition. FACTS In January 2012, an information charged Stephens with unlawful taking of a vehicle, grand theft auto, and receiving a stolen vehicle. The vehicle was identified as a “2006 Buick Rendezvous.” In March 2012, he pleaded guilty to the count of receiving a