People v. Bush
245 Cal. App. 4th 992
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Wade Bush pled guilty (2003) to multiple counts including two counts of theft from an elder (Pen. Code § 368, counts 2 & 23) and three counts of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code § 496, counts 12, 14, 15). He was sentenced to 20 years and ordered restitution.
- After Proposition 47 (2014) added Penal Code § 1170.18 permitting certain felony-to-misdemeanor resentencing, Bush petitioned to recall sentence and reduce the § 368 and § 496 felonies to misdemeanors.
- Trial court summarily denied the petition, stating Bush was not eligible “due to the nature of the convictions,” but gave no specific reasons or record citations; the petition was lost from the clerk’s file.
- Record shows the § 368 counts involved thefts from a 74-year-old victim (elder abuse context); the § 496 counts involved receipt of stolen identification cards (one ID per count). The plea and probation report do not establish the dollar value of each ID.
- The trial court denied relief for § 368 counts as a legal matter; the appellate court affirmed that denial. The appellate court reversed and remanded as to the § 496 counts because the record does not support a finding the IDs exceeded $950, and the trial court failed to state its reasons.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 368 theft-from-elder convictions are eligible for resentencing under Prop 47/§ 1170.18 | Prosecution: § 368 is not among the statutes listed in § 1170.18; thus ineligible | Bush: § 490.2 (petty-theft cap $950) should operate to make some § 368 thefts eligible if value ≤ $950 | Held: § 368 is not eligible under § 1170.18; affirmed (statutory list/omission and § 666 amendment show intent to exclude § 368) |
| Whether § 496 receiving-stolen-property convictions (counts 12,14,15) are ineligible because value exceeded $950 | Prosecution: Court can rely on probation file and restitution to find value > $950 | Bush: Counts involved single ID cards, record has no valuation; thus may be eligible (≤ $950) | Held: Reversed and remanded as to counts 12,14,15; record lacks evidence that each ID exceeded $950 and trial court failed to state reasons; court must reconsider eligibility and, if eligible, assess public-safety risk |
| Whether trial court erred by failing to state reasons/materials relied on in denying petition | Prosecution: summary denial permissible for legal ineligibility on § 368 counts | Bush: Lack of stated reasons prevents review; petitioner entitled to identifying basis for denial | Held: No error regarding § 368 (denial was legal conclusion); error as to § 496 counts because denial lacked explanation and record doesn’t support noneligibility |
| Standard/burden for eligibility fact-finding under §1170.18 | Prosecution: trial court determines eligibility by preponderance (Osuna) | Bush: N/A (focused on sufficiency of evidence) | Held: Trial court must determine eligibility (preponderance standard per Osuna) and then decide public-safety risk; here remand required for factual determination on § 496 counts |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Rivera, 233 Cal.App.4th 1085 (discusses Prop 47 resentencing scheme)
- People v. Osuna, 225 Cal.App.4th 1020 (preponderance standard for eligibility under § 1170.18)
- People v. Sherow, 239 Cal.App.4th 875 (petition must allege sufficient facts to show eligibility when value is not in record)
- People v. Coddington, 23 Cal.4th 529 (presumption that trial courts follow the law)
- Imperial Merchant Services, Inc. v. Hunt, 47 Cal.4th 381 (principles of statutory construction apply to voter initiatives)