People v. Lavis CA2/2

California Court of Appeal Sep 28, 2016 No. B268553Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that theft of access card information under Penal Code section 484e, subdivision (d) is not an offense eligible for resentencing under Proposition 47, and that the defendant failed to meet his burden of proving the value of the forged items involved in his section 475 conviction did not exceed $950.

Issues

Whether a conviction for theft of access card account information under Penal Code section 484e, subdivision (d) is eligible for resentencing under Proposition 47.
Whether a defendant bears the burden of proving the value of forged items does not exceed $950 to qualify for resentencing under Penal Code section 473, subdivision (b).

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Violation of section 484e, subdivision (d) is not an offense that is eligible for resentencing under section 1170.18.”

“Defendant bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for relief under Proposition 47.”

“Defendant’s assertion that he qualified for resentencing under section 1170.18 does not satisfy his burden of proving that the value of the items involved in his offense were less than $950.”

Filed 9/28/16 P. v. Lavis CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B268553

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA075740) v.

MATTHEW LAVIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michael K. Kellogg, Judge. Affirmed.

James Koester, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Chung L. Mar and Mary Sanchez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Matthew Lavis (defendant) appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Proposition 47 to reduce his felony convictions under Penal Code section 475, subdivision (b),1 and section 484e, subdivision (d), to misdemeanors. We affirm the order denying the petition. BACKGROUND On December 10, 2013, defendant pled no contest to forgery (§ 475, subd. (b)) and theft of access card account information (§ 484e, subd. (d).) He also admitted a prior “strike” conviction. (§§ 667, subd. (b)-(j), 1170.12.) He was sentenced to state prison for a total of four years. On June 24, 2015, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Proposition 47. At the November 5, 2015 hearing on the petition, the trial court denied the petition on the ground that defendant’s offenses were ineligible for resentencing under Proposition 47. This appeal followed. DISCUSSION I. Applicable law and standard of review In November 2014, California voters approved Proposition 47, which reclassified certain felony drug and theft offenses as misdemeanors. (§ 1170.18, subd. (a).) Proposition 47 added section 1170.18, under which a person currently serving a felony sentence for an offense that is now a misdemeanor under Proposition 47 may petition for a recall of that sentence and request resentencing in accordance with certain specific statutes that were added or amended by Proposition 47. (§ 1170.18, subd. (a).)2 As

People v. Lavis CA2/2

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, B268553

MATTHEW LAVIS,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief