People v. Pizana CA5

Filed 10/19/20 P. v. Pizana CA5 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F075805 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F16907705) v.

CHASE ANDREW PIZANA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jonathan M. Skiles, Judge. Kevin J. Lindsley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez, Ivan P. Marrs, and Cavan M. Cox II, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Franson, Acting P.J., Smith, J. and De Santos, J.

A jury convicted Chase Andrew Pizana of multiple offenses, including a felony count of buying or receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d).1 Under its terms, section 496d does not require proof that the stolen vehicle exceeded any minimal value to be deemed a felony. Pizana contends Proposition 47, and specifically section 490.2, petty theft, has added a component to section 496d so that a felony conviction under section 496d requires proof that the value of the vehicle exceeds $950. In our original opinion, we agreed with Pizana2 and, because we did so, did not address his further argument that the failure of the trial court to apply Proposition 47 to convictions under section 496d violates equal protection. The California Supreme Court granted review of our opinion and has transferred the matter back to us with directions to vacate our original opinion and reconsider Pizana’s appeal in light of its decision in People v. Orozco (2020) 9 Cal.5th 111 (Orozco). Having done so, we conclude that Pizana is ineligible for Proposition 47 relief and find no equal protection violation. We do find that recent amendments to the statute imposing enhancements for prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) require the trial court to resentence Pizana. We thus vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing but otherwise affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND In December 2016, Fresno County Sheriff’s Office Detective John Capriola was working as part of a multi-agency task force specializing in the investigation of vehicle thefts. Capriola was contacted and asked to assist in the search of a subject wanted in connection with a shooting. Capriola saw the shooting suspect and Pizana leave an