People v. Ruiz CA6

Filed 9/27/16 P. v. Ruiz CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H041767 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. Nos. SS141057 & SS141969) v.

MIGUEL ANGEL GALLO RUIZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Miguel Angel Gallo Ruiz appeals from an order denying his petition to resentence his two felony convictions for vehicle theft as misdemeanors pursuant to Proposition 47. (Pen. 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 Proposition 47 relief. STATEMENT OF THE CASE This appeal involves two separate superior court cases. In April 2014, defendant stole a 1991 Mazda Navajo and he was arrested. In case No. SS141057A, defendant was charged with unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), and with misdemeanor resisting, obstructing or delaying a public officer in the performance of his or her duties (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)). In May 2014, defendant pleaded no contest to the charges against him, on condition that he would be ordered to complete

felony probation. In June 2014, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on felony probation for three years, with various terms and conditions. In July 2014, defendant stole a 1994 Toyota Camry and he was arrested. In case No. SS141969A, defendant was charged with unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), and with misdemeanor possession of controlled substance paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364.1, subd. (a)). The complaint also alleged the enhancement allegation that appellant had a prior auto theft conviction (Pen. Code, § 666.5, subd. (a); Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). In September 2014, defendant pleaded no contest to the vehicle theft charge, and admitted his prior vehicle theft conviction; the misdemeanor drug paraphernalia offense was dismissed. In December 2014, defendant filed a petition asking the court to resentence his two felony convictions for violating Vehicle Code section 10851 in case Nos. SS141969A and SS141057A as misdemeanors in accordance with Proposition 47. The trial court denied defendant’s Proposition 47 petition. In case No. SS141057A, the court reinstated defendant on probation. In case No. SS141969A, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on three years’ felony probation, with the condition that he serve 227 days in county jail, with 227 days of credit for time served. DISCUSSION Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his petition to have his vehicle theft convictions resentenced as misdemeanors 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 the California Constitution. On November 4, 2014, the voters enacted Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. (People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1089.) Proposition 47