People v. Cardoso CA4/3

Filed 9/2/16 P. v. Cardoso 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G051830

v. (Super. Ct. No. 04WF1219)

ESTEBAN GARCIA CARDOSO, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kazuharu Makino, Judge. (Retired judge of the Orange Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Erica Gambale, 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, Barry Carlton and Sabrina Y. Lane-Erwin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Esteban Garcia Cardoso petitioned the superior court for reduction of his 1 felony conviction for second degree burglary of a vehicle (Pen. Code, § 459) to a misdemeanor pursuant to the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, enacted by the voters as Proposition 47 in the November 2014 election. (§ 1170.18.) The trial court denied the petition, finding Cardoso’s conviction was not eligible for resentencing. We affirm the postjudgment order because vehicle burglary is not one of offenses redesignated as misdemeanors by Proposition 47, and we reject Cardoso’s contention its omission from those offenses violated his right to equal protection under the law. FACTS In 2005 Cardoso entered a guilty plea, admitting he broke into a locked Nissan Sentra with the intent to commit larceny. At the time, he was acting for the benefit of a criminal street gang. He also admitted to battery of a police officer, causing him injury. He also admitted having a prior conviction within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). The trial court sentenced Cardoso to four years and eight months in prison. In 2015 Cardoso filed, and the trial court denied, his petition to have the second degree vehicle burglary conviction reduced to a misdemeanor under the newly enacted Proposition 47. The court found the crime of vehicle burglary did not qualify under Proposition 47. DISCUSSION Cardoso argues his conviction for second degree vehicle burglary is a theft offense and falls within the meaning of Proposition 47. He recognizes vehicle burglary is not a specifically enumerated felony that may be redesignated as a misdemeanor, but notes theft (§ 490.2) and shoplifting (§ 459.5) of goods valued less than $950 are subject to redesignation under the new law. He asserts Proposition 47 “contains sweeping