People v. Johnson
1 Cal. App. 5th 953
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 2013 Branden Johnson pleaded guilty to felony receiving stolen property (Pen. Code § 496) and received a three-year split sentence (two years jail, one year mandatory supervision).
- After Proposition 47 (effective Nov 5, 2014) reduced certain theft offenses to misdemeanors if property value ≤ $950, Johnson petitioned (Apr 2015) under Pen. Code § 1170.18 to recall his felony sentence and be resentenced as a misdemeanor.
- Johnson filed a one-page check-box petition with minimal information; he later submitted an unsigned police report suggesting the stolen laptop was valued $350–$400. The People opposed, relying in part on a probation report and arguing Johnson bore the burden to prove eligibility.
- The trial court denied the petition, stating the parties were confined to the record of conviction and that Johnson had the burden to show, via the record, the stolen property’s value ≤ $950.
- On appeal Johnson argued the court erred by placing the initial burden on him and by considering only the record of conviction; the Court of Appeal affirmed but without prejudice to Johnson refiling a petition with admissible evidence of value.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Johnson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who has the initial burden to establish eligibility under §1170.18(a)? | Johnson must make the initial showing of eligibility; People may then rebut. | The People must prove ineligibility because the record of conviction is silent on value. | Petitioning defendant has the initial burden to show eligibility. |
| May the court consider evidence beyond the record of conviction to determine initial eligibility? | Court may consider evidence from any admissible source when defendant bears initial burden. | Trial court should be limited to the record of conviction (relying on Bradford). | Court is not limited to the record of conviction for Prop 47 eligibility. |
| Was Johnson’s petition sufficient to meet the initial burden (show value ≤ $950)? | Johnson failed to present admissible evidence proving value ≤ $950. | Submission of the police report and silent record sufficed to shift burden. | Johnson failed to meet initial burden; denial affirmed (harmless error re: Bradford limitation). |
| Remedy / relief — is reversal required or leave to renew? | Deny absent admissible evidence; allow refile if defendant can present evidence. | Sought reversal because court misallocated burden and limited evidence. | Affirmed without prejudice; defendant may file a new petition with admissible evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Rivera, 233 Cal.App.4th 1085 (discussing Prop. 47 effective date and scope)
- People v. Bradford, 227 Cal.App.4th 1322 (Prop. 36; court relied on Bradford for limiting evidence to record of conviction)
- People v. Sherow, 239 Cal.App.4th 875 (holding petitioner bears initial burden under §1170.18)
- People v. Rivas-Colon, 241 Cal.App.4th 444 (same principle: petitioner initial burden)
- People v. Perkins, 244 Cal.App.4th 129 (affirmance for lack of petitioner proof; leave to renew)
- People v. Bush, 245 Cal.App.4th 992 (supports petitioner initial burden rule)
- People v. Trujillo, 40 Cal.4th 165 (definition of "record of conviction")
- People v. Guerrero, 44 Cal.3d 343 (distinguishing presumption of least offense for enhancement contexts)
- People v. Superior Court (Kaulick), 215 Cal.App.4th 1279 (discussing prosecution's rights to present evidence in resentencing proceedings)
- People v. Overton, 190 Cal.App.2d 369 (probation report is not evidence)