People v. Lee CA4/3

Filed 9/26/16 P. v.Lee 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G051336

v. (Super. Ct. No. 12NF2460)

ANDREW SUNGEUN LEE, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan S. Fish, Judge. Affirmed. Jared G. Coleman, 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, Sharon Rhodes and Adrianne S. Denault, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

INTRODUCTION Defendant Andrew Sungeun Lee appeals from an order denying his petition under Penal Code section 1170.18 for, inter alia, the reduction of his felony convictions, for unlawfully taking a vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) and receiving a stolen motor vehicle in violation of Penal Code section 496d, subdivision (a), to misdemeanors. (All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.) Lee argues his convictions fall within the category of felony offenses that qualify for reduction to misdemeanors by the passage of the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (Proposition 47). He also argues the denial of his petition under the new statutory scheme violates his right to equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the California Constitution. We affirm. Neither Vehicle Code section 10851 nor section 496d is included in the list of statutes contained in section 1170.18, defining felonies that qualify for redesignation as misdemeanors. Even if we were to assume both offenses constitute theft-related offenses within the meaning of section 490.2, and thereby potentially qualify for redesignation to misdemeanors under Proposition 47, the petition was properly denied because Lee failed to prove that the stolen car he had received and unlawfully had taken had a value of no more than $950, which is a requirement of misdemeanor petty theft under section 490.2. Lee’s equal protection argument fails due to the same failure of proof. BACKGROUND In 2012, Lee was charged in a felony complaint with one count each of unlawful taking of a vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) and receiving stolen property (a motor vehicle) in violation of section 496d, subdivision (a). He pleaded guilty to both counts, stating as the factual basis of his plea: “In Orange County, California, on 7-29-12 I unlawfully took the vehicle of another w/intent to