People v. Wilson CA5

Filed 10/7/16 P. v. Wilson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F071034 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 1427666) v.

CHRISTOPHER ALAN WILSON, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Joseph R. Distaso, Judge. Lindsay Sweet, 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, Catherine Chatman and Daniel B. Bernstein, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

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

Appellant Christopher Allan Wilson 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 August 19, 2011, appellant pled nolo contendere to unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle under Vehicle Code section 10851. The prosecutor explained the factual basis for the plea as follows: “on January 6, 2011, in Modesto and Stanislaus County, the defendant stole a 1991 grey Honda Accord, with intent to deprive the said owner of title to and possession of said vehicle.” Along with this charge, appellant was facing multiple additional charges and probation violations in copending cases. Appellant received a total sentence of three years four months for the Vehicle Code charge, which was suspended pending successful completion of a five-year probation term. Appellant admitted to violating his probation on January 7, 2014, and again on August 22, 2014. As a result, appellant was sentenced in line with his previously suspended sentence for the Vehicle Code violation, as well as for his other prior matters. On December 29, 2014, appellant petitioned for resentencing under Proposition 47 on his 2011 Vehicle Code conviction. Appellant filed a brief supporting the petition, but did not include any evidence regarding the value of the 1991 Honda Accord. The trial court denied appellant’s petition, concluding that, although appellant was charged with auto theft under Vehicle Code section 10851, Proposition 47 did not “specifically list any Vehicle Code section” and including Vehicle Code section 10851 within the ambit of Proposition 47 would lead to absurd results by punishing joyriding more harshly than theft. This appeal timely followed.