People v. Bussey
24 Cal. App. 5th 1056
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Defendant Nathan Erick Bussey was convicted by a jury of unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle (Veh. Code §10851) and receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code §496d); pled no contest to two misdemeanors and admitted some prior convictions; sentenced to state prison for six years after some recidivist findings were stricken.
- The vehicle was a 1996 Pontiac Grand Am taken in December 2014; Bussey was stopped driving it a week later and claimed he received it from a third party; no direct evidence linked him to the initial taking.
- Trial evidence suggested the car was low in value (CHP form range $301–$4,000), but no witness testified to a specific value and the CHP form was excluded as hearsay.
- Bussey argued Proposition 47 (Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, 2014) should render the felony Vehicle Code count a misdemeanor because the vehicle's value could be under $950; he also argued he was denied his request to represent himself pretrial.
- The Court of Appeal previously affirmed; after the California Supreme Court decided People v. Page, the case was transferred back for reconsideration in light of Page.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Veh. Code §10851 conviction can be reduced to misdemeanor based on Prop 47 value rule | People: conviction may stand as felony unless record shows jury necessarily found value > $950 or the verdict was based on posttheft driving theory | Bussey: §10851 should be treated under Prop 47 for low-value vehicles (<= $950) and thus be a misdemeanor | Reversed felony conviction for §10851 and vacated sentence; remand for People to elect retrial as felony with correct instructions or accept reduction to misdemeanor (per Page/Gutierrez framework) |
| Whether jury instructions/lack of value finding fatally undermine the §10851 felony verdict | People: pattern instructions could support either taking (value element) or posttheft driving (no value element); no record showing which theory jury used | Bussey: absence of vehicle value evidence means felony verdict invalid under Prop 47 policy | Court: instruction/record ambiguity requires reversal and retrial or reduction; cannot infer jury necessarily found value > $950 (adopts Gutierrez approach) |
| Whether Pen. Code §496d (receiving stolen vehicle) is covered by Prop 47 misdemeanor relief | People: §496d is not listed in Prop 47 and is a distinct, more specific statute; Prop 47’s amendments to §496 do not automatically apply to §496d | Bussey: general language in §496 should extend misdemeanor treatment to §496d (and similar provisions) | Court: §496d is not encompassed by Prop 47; specific statute controls over general, and disparate treatment is rationally related to legitimate legislative objectives; §496d conviction stands |
| Double jeopardy or equal protection bars retrial on §10851 after reversal | Bussey: retrial barred by double jeopardy; felony designation leads to unequal treatment | People: retrial permissible; equal protection not violated by excluding §496d or §10851 from Prop 47’s express list | Court: double jeopardy does not bar retrial; equal protection challenge rejected as not meritorious |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Page, 3 Cal.5th 1175 (2017) (§10851 convictions eligible for misdemeanor treatment under Prop 47 when underlying taking involved vehicle valued ≤ $950; distinguishes posttheft driving)
- People v. Gutierrez, 20 Cal.App.5th 847 (2018) (where jury instructions allow conviction on theories that do or do not require a value finding, reversal is required and People may retry or accept misdemeanor reduction)
- People v. Johnston, 247 Cal.App.4th 252 (2016) (discusses scope of Prop 47 amendments and interpretive limits when statutes are not expressly included)
- State Dept. of Public Health v. Superior Court, 60 Cal.4th 940 (2015) (specific statute controls over a general statute when conflicts arise)