People v. Woodral CA5

Filed 10/7/16 P. v. Woodral CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F071036 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 1471650) v.

DANIEL MARVIN WOODRAL, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Joseph R. Distaso, Judge. Julia J. Spikes, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna, Ivan Marrs and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Poochigian, J.

Appellant Daniel Marvin Woodral appeals from the denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18 seeking modification of the sentence imposed on his prior conviction for unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851). Appellant contends that his conviction under Vehicle Code section 10851 is eligible for resentencing under Proposition 47 and that the denial of his request violates principles of equal protection. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On May 12, 2014, appellant pled guilty to unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle under Vehicle Code section 10851 and admitted to enhancements for a prior theft conviction and a prior prison sentence. In exchange, several additional allegations were dismissed and appellant received a five-year sentence. The facts supporting the plea showed that appellant was found driving a stolen 1989 Nissan 240SX that had been repainted. Appellant’s arrest came several days after the car was stolen and appellant admitted to spray painting the car black. On December 29, 2014, appellant petitioned for resentencing under Proposition 47. Appellant filed a brief supporting the petition, but did not include any evidence regarding the value of the 1989 Nissan 240SX. The trial court denied appellant’s petition. This appeal timely followed. DISCUSSION Appellant argues that a violation of Vehicle Code section 10851 is a theft offense subject to resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18. In addition, appellant argues that treating a conviction for theft of an automobile under Vehicle Code section 10851 as a felony while other similar property thefts are treated as misdemeanors under Penal Code section 490.2 violates equal protection principles. We have previously addressed both issues in People v. Sauceda (2016) ___ Cal.App.5th ___ (Sauceda) [2016 Cal.App. Lexis 792]. In Sauceda, we held that Vehicle Code section 10851 is not affected by the