People v. Johnston
247 Cal. App. 4th 252
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Tony Dale Johnston pleaded guilty in 2003 to multiple felonies including unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle (Veh. Code § 10851) and was sentenced to state prison; he later pleaded guilty in 2011 to methamphetamine possession and receiving stolen property and received a two-year term.
- In May 2015 Johnston petitioned under Penal Code § 1170.18 (Prop. 47 resentencing/recall) seeking to reduce several prior felonies to misdemeanors; his petition gave only general statements about substance abuse and mental health and did not detail offense circumstances.
- The People opposed relief as to the 2003 convictions as ineligible under § 1170.18, did not oppose reducing the 2011 meth conviction, and asserted the 2011 receiving-stolen-property involved a vehicle worth over $950.
- The trial court reduced the methamphetamine conviction to a misdemeanor, denied relief on the ineligible 2003 and the receiving-stolen-property conviction (value > $950), and later failed to amend the abstract for the 2011 convictions (conceded error).
- Johnston appealed only the denial as to the 2003 unlawful taking/driving conviction; he argued § 10851 should be covered by § 1170.18 because it can be a lesser included offense of grand theft (§ 487).
- The Court of Appeal affirmed denial for the § 10851 conviction, directed correction of the abstract for the 2011 meth reduction, and explained reasons why § 10851 is not within § 1170.18’s retrospective relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Veh. Code § 10851 (unlawful taking/driving) is eligible for relief under Penal Code § 1170.18 | § 1170.18’s text and amendments list specific offenses; §10851 is not among them so relief unavailable | §10851 can be a lesser included offense of grand theft (§487) or otherwise fall within §1170.18’s remedial scope and the initiative should be liberally construed | Held: §10851 is not encompassed by §1170.18; petition denial affirmed |
| Whether §490.2’s petty-theft definition brings §10851 within §1170.18 | Electorate intentionally limited listed offenses; §490.2 does not expressly include §10851 so it cannot expand §1170.18 | §490.2’s catchall could include statutes defining grand theft, bringing §10851 within scope | Held: §490.2 does not incorporate §10851 into §1170.18; cannot be used to expand initiative’s reach |
| Whether defendant bore burden to show his conviction was for theft of a ≤ $950 vehicle | People argued defendant failed to allege facts showing his conviction relied on theft of a low-value vehicle | Defendant argued court should infer eligibility without detailed facts | Held: Defendant bore burden; his petition lacked factual allegations/declaration proving elements that would qualify for relief |
| Whether the differential treatment violates equal protection | People argued disparate treatment rationally related to electorate’s choices and prosecutorial discretion | Defendant argued arbitrary disparity (petty theft vs. §10851 for same conduct) violates equal protection | Held: No equal protection violation; rational basis exists for electorate’s incremental choices and prosecutorial charging discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- County of Sonoma v. Cohen, 235 Cal.App.4th 42 (2015) (courts must follow unambiguous statutory text over generalized legislative purpose)
- People v. Acosta, 242 Cal.App.4th 521 (2015) (liberal-construction or policy aims do not justify importing omitted offenses into Prop. 47)
- People v. Garza, 35 Cal.4th 866 (2005) (§10851 covers taking/driving without regard to intent to steal)
- People v. Wilkinson, 33 Cal.4th 821 (2004) (charging or differential punishment choices do not, by themselves, violate equal protection)
- People v. Romo, 14 Cal.3d 189 (1975) (disparities in punishment between related offenses do not automatically establish equal protection violations)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (1965) (ameliorative statutory changes are presumed retroactive absent contrary intent; not dispositive here because §10851 was not amended)
- Strang v. Cabrol, 37 Cal.3d 720 (1984) (expressio unius est exclusio alterius canon supports excluding unlisted items)
- People v. Sherow, 239 Cal.App.4th 875 (2015) (defendant must allege facts in a §1170.18 petition to show eligibility)
- People v. Rivas-Colon, 241 Cal.App.4th 444 (2015) (burden on petitioner to prove factual basis for reclassification under Prop. 47)
- People v. Solis, 245 Cal.App.4th 1099 (2016) (reaches similar conclusions regarding scope of §1170.18)