People v. Case CA2/6

Filed 9/22/20 P. v. Case CA2/6 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B283838 (Super. Ct. No. 2016045507) Plaintiff and Appellant, (Ventura County)

v. OPINION FOLLOWING TIMOTHY EUGENE CASE, TRANSFER FROM SUPREME COURT Defendant and Respondent.

Timothy Eugene Case pled guilty to nine felony counts of misuse of the personal identifying information of another (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a)).1 Over the People’s objection, the trial court granted Case’s motion to reduce the section 530.5(a) convictions to misdemeanors pursuant to Proposition 47 and section 490.2. The People appealed that order, which we affirmed. The California Supreme Court granted review. (People

All statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1

Subsequent citations to section 530.5, subdivision (a) will appear as section 530.5(a).

v. Case (May 31, 2018, B283838) [nonpub. opn.], review granted Aug. 8, 2018, S249667.) After deciding People v. Jimenez (2020) 9 Cal.5th 53 (Jimenez), the Supreme Court transferred the matter back to this court with directions to vacate our prior opinion and to reconsider the cause in light of Jimenez. Having done so, we conclude Jimenez requires reversal of the trial court’s order. We therefore reverse and remand for resentencing. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 2016, Case entered five different stores in Simi Valley and used a stolen credit card to purchase e-cigarette devices, a digital scale, Ziploc baggies, alcohol, two packs of cigarettes, batteries, food and two prepaid cell phones. The total cost of the items was $849.17. The prosecution charged these offenses as felony misuse of personal identifying information under section 530.5(a). At the preliminary hearing, Case’s attorney argued the offenses should be charged as misdemeanors or the “Court should exercise its discretion in compliance with the will of the electorate that has been expressed through the passage of Prop[osition] 47 and reduce these counts, the 470s and 530.5, which remain wobblers via 17 (b).” The magistrate denied the request and also declined to reduce the counts to misdemeanors under section 17, subdivision (b). Case was held to answer on all counts. After pleading guilty to the nine felony section 530.5(a) offenses, Case renewed his request to reduce the offenses to misdemeanors pursuant to Proposition 47. The trial court reviewed People v. Gonzales (2017) 2 Cal.5th 858 and People v. Romanowski (2017) 2 Cal.5th 903, and determined that under the reasoning and holdings in those cases, it was “obligated to