People v. Haywood
2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 1168
Cal. Ct. App. 3rd2015Background
- In Jan 2015 Pharaoh Haywood filed a pro se petition under Penal Code §1170.18 to redesignate his 1996 felony conviction for unlawful taking/driving of a vehicle (Veh. Code §10851) as a misdemeanor.
- He waived personal appearance for uncontested matters; a public defender was appointed ex parte and the trial court summarily denied the petition by minute order citing "current convictions."
- Haywood argued §1170.18 should be construed to include §10851 either because unlawful taking can be a "theft conviction" or via the initiative’s general purposes and liberal-construction clause.
- The initiative (Prop. 47) expressly reduced certain drug-possession and theft-related offenses to misdemeanors and created §1170.18 for resentencing when an offense would have been a misdemeanor under the initiative.
- The court concluded §1170.18’s enumerated offenses are unambiguous and do not include Veh. Code §10851; it affirmed denial of the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Veh. Code §10851 qualifies for resentencing under Penal Code §1170.18 | Haywood: §10851 can be a "theft conviction" or fits within the initiative’s broad purpose; liberal construction and rule of lenity support inclusion | Court/People: §1170.18 enumerates specific offenses and does not include §10851; initiative text and ballot materials show no intent to include it | §10851 is not a qualifying offense under §1170.18; petition denial affirmed |
| Whether §490.2 or §666 brings §10851 within §1170.18’s reach | Haywood: §490.2 (redefining petty theft) or §666’s treatment of auto theft indicates inclusion | Court: §490.2 applies to statutes that define grand theft; §10851 does not define grand theft and §666’s recidivist treatment is unrelated to resentencing relief | Neither §490.2 nor §666 brings §10851 within §1170.18 |
| Whether due process required the trial court to solicit factual briefing on vehicle value | Haywood: court should have obtained input/briefing to determine eligibility based on vehicle value | Court/People: No duty where conviction statute is ineligible as a matter of law; no need to probe facts | No due-process duty to solicit briefing when statute is ineligible; claim fails |
| Whether appeal should be dismissed or affirmed where petitioner is ineligible | Haywood: sought relief and appealed denial | Court: appeal from denial by minute order might be dismissed in theory because petitioner ineligible, but court chooses to affirm order | Court affirms the order denying redesignation |
Key Cases Cited
- Teal v. Superior Court, 60 Cal.4th 595 (Cal. 2014) (challengeability of resentencing-eligibility decisions)
- People v. Garza, 35 Cal.4th 866 (Cal. 2005) (when theft conviction interacts with §654 and related theft statutes)
- People v. McRoberts, 178 Cal.App.4th 1249 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (statutory/initiative construction principles)
- People v. Meyer, 186 Cal.App.4th 1279 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (text controls when statute unambiguous)
- County of Sonoma v. Cohen, 235 Cal.App.4th 42 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (cannot override plain language with inchoate legislative purpose)
- Strang v. Cabrol, 37 Cal.3d 720 (Cal. 1984) (expressio unius est exclusio alterius principle)
- People v. Elder, 227 Cal.App.4th 1308 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (rule of lenity applies only when statutory intent is in equipoise)
- People v. Oehmigen, 232 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (due process/input requirements for eligibility issues)
- People v. Garness, 241 Cal.App.4th 1370 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (similar analysis rejecting extension of §1170.18 to unlisted offenses)
- People v. Page, 241 Cal.App.4th 714 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (refusing to expand §1170.18 beyond listed offenses)
- People v. Acosta, 242 Cal.App.4th 521 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (liberal construction not a basis to include omitted offenses)
- In re J.L., 242 Cal.App.4th 1108 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (operation of §459.5 and shoplifting-related resentencing)