People v. D.N. (In re D.N.), 228 Cal. Rptr. 3d 267

October 2016 petition alleged juvenile D.N. committed residential burglary (count 1) and vehicle theft under Veh. Code §10851 (count 2); contested jurisdiction hearing found both allegations true.
Prosecutor presented no evidence of the stolen vehicle’s value at trial.
At disposition, the juvenile court exercised discretion and treated the vehicle-theft conviction as a felony.
After briefing, California Supreme Court decided People v. Page holding Vehicle Code §10851 theft is subject to Prop. 47 / Pen. Code §490.2 and requires proof the vehicle’s value exceeded $950 to be a felony.
The People argued they should be allowed a remand to prove value; the juvenile argued absence of value proof requires reducing the §10851 adjudication to a misdemeanor.
The appellate court reduced D.N.’s §10851 adjudication to a misdemeanor, remanding for minute-order corrections and affirming remaining orders.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Vehicle Code §10851 theft is governed by Prop. 47 / Pen. Code §490.2 (i.e., value element > $950 required for felony)	Page does not apply; §10851 is outside Prop. 47’s petty-theft provision	Page controls; §10851 theft falls within Prop. 47 and requires proof value > $950 for felony	Held: §10851 theft is within Prop. 47 / §490.2; value > $950 required for felony (People v. Page)
Whether the People may be remanded / allowed to retry to prove vehicle value when value was not proved at original hearing	The People should be permitted to retry to prove the value element	Because Prop. 47 / §490.2 was in effect well before the offense and hearing, the People were on notice; retrial would violate double jeopardy	Held: No remand for retrial; allowing retry would violate double jeopardy; conviction reduced to misdemeanor

People v. Page, 3 Cal.5th 1175 (Cal. 2017) (holds §10851 vehicle theft falls within Prop. 47 / §490.2; value > $950 required for felony)
People v. Eagle, 246 Cal.App.4th 275 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (permitted remand to prove newly added statutory element where law changed after offense and conviction)
People v. Figueroa, 20 Cal.App.4th 65 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (remand allowed to prove additional element added while appeal pending; ex post facto and double jeopardy not implicated)
People v. Shirley, 31 Cal.3d 18 (Cal. 1982) (double jeopardy bars retrial after reversal for evidentiary insufficiency; not implicated where error was procedural)
Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1978) (double jeopardy prohibits retrial when reversal was based on insufficiency of the evidence)
Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 450 (Cal. 1962) (standard for following controlling higher-court precedent)
In re Dennis B., 18 Cal.3d 687 (Cal. 1976) (double jeopardy principles apply to juvenile adjudications)