People v. Winter CA6

Filed 9/27/16 P. v. Winter CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H042007 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1476826)

v.

FRANK ALLEN WINTER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Frank Allen Winter appeals from an order denying his petition to resentence his felony conviction for vehicle theft with a prior (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 666.5) a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47. (Penal Code, § 1170.18, subd. (a)). On appeal, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in denying his petition based on its finding that he was ineligible for relief under Proposition 47. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE On January 1, 2013, the victim reported that her 1996 Honda Accord had been stolen. The victim told police that the car was worth $2,000. The next day, the police located the car, and saw defendant enter the car and drive off. The police attempted to stop the car, but defendant fled at a high rate of speed. One of the officers identified defendant as the driver of the stolen car. When the police contacted the victim, she told them that she did not know defendant and had not given him permission to drive her car.

On January 11, 2013, defendant was arrested for vehicle theft, admitted that he had used drugs a few hours earlier, and that an acquaintance of his sold the Honda to a dealership for $300. The police recovered the stolen car on January 12, 2013. In February 2014, defendant was charged with driving or taking away a vehicle with a prior conviction (Veh. Code, § 10851, subds. (a), (e); Pen. Code, § 666.5); buying or receiving a stolen motor vehicle (Pen. Code, §§ 496d, 666.5); fleeing a pursuing peace officer’s motor vehicle (Veh. Code, § 2800.1, subd. (a)); being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a)); and possession of controlled substance paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364.1). The information also alleged that defendant had served prison terms for three prior convictions. (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).) In September 2014, defendant pleaded no contest to all of the charges with the exception of buying or receiving a stolen vehicle, which was dismissed by the prosecutor as a condition of the plea. Defendant was sentenced to a prison term of one year, to be served consecutively with the prison term from a prior conviction. In January 2015, defendant filed a petition pursuant to Proposition 47 (Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subdivision (a)), to have his vehicle theft conviction reduced to a misdemeanor. On January 21, 2015, the court denied defendant’s petition, and defendant filed a notice of appeal. DISCUSSION Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his petition to resentence his vehicle theft conviction as a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47. He argues that voters intended that the crime of theft of a vehicle valued at $950 or less be included in the sentencing reforms of Proposition 47. In addition, defendant asserts that the court’s denial of his Proposition 47 petition violated his right to equal protection under both the California Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment.