People v. Woodward CA6

Filed 9/27/16 P. v. Woodward CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H042508 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. CC787929)

v.

MICHAEL JAY WOODWARD,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Michael Jay Woodward appeals from an order denying his petition to designate his conviction for grand theft (Pen. Code, §§ 484-487, subd. (a)),1 as a misdemeanor under Proposition 47. (§ 1170.18, subd. (f)).2 On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred because it improperly found that defendant stole $1,500 from the victim, making his grand theft conviction ineligible for designation as a misdemeanor under Proposition 47.

1 We note that both defendant’s opening brief, and well as the reply brief contain tables of contents, and point headings that incorrectly refer to defendant being convicted of vehicle theft (Vehicle Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and whether the value of the stolen vehicle was worth $950 or less. We recognize that Proposition 47 cases that involve stolen vehicle convictions are very common in this court; however, defendant’s actual conviction in this case was for grand theft in violation of Penal Code sections 484-487, subdivision (a), and the table of contents and point headings in defendant’s briefs should correctly reflect this. 2 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AAND CASE In 2007, Laura Mazella allowed defendant to cash three money orders totaling $,500 using her bank account. A week later the bank informed Mazzella that the checks were forged and deducted the money from her bank account. Defendant was charged in 2008 with three counts of forgery (§ 470, subd. (d)) and one count of grand theft of property valued at over $400 (§§ 484-487, subd. (a)). The information also alleged that defendant had four prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). In May 2008, defendant pleaded no contest to the charges and admitted the prior convictions. Defendant was sentenced to four years four months in state prison, and was ordered to pay restitution to Mazella in the amount of $1,500 plus the bank fees of $25 per forged check, for a total of $1,575. In May 2015, defendant petitioned the superior court to designate the convictions in this case as misdemeanors pursuant to Proposition 47. The court granted the petition as to the forgeries, and designated the convictions as misdemeanors. However, the court denied defendant’s petition as to the grand theft conviction, finding that the value of the stolen property was $1,500. Defendant appeals the court’s denial of his petition. DISCUSSION Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in denying his petition, because its finding that the stolen property was worth $1,500 was not supported by substantial evidence. He argues that because there was insufficient evidence to show that the value of the stolen property was anything other than over $400 based on the elements of the crime to which he was convicted, he is entitled to have his conviction for grand theft designated as a misdemeanor under Proposition 47. 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 “reduced the penalties for a number of offenses.” (People v. Sherow (2015) 239