People v. Lenahan CA4/1, D068587

Background

In 2012 Julie E. Lenahan pleaded guilty to felony receiving stolen property (Pen. Code § 496(a)) and a misdemeanor burglary; probation was granted and restitution was reserved.
Proposition 47 (effective Nov. 5, 2014) reduced certain theft offenses to misdemeanors when the value of the property does not exceed $950 and created a resentencing procedure (§ 1170.18).
In May 2015 Lenahan petitioned under § 1170.18(a) to recall her felony sentence and be resentenced under Prop. 47; she submitted no extrinsic evidence supporting the value of the stolen property.
The People opposed, arguing Lenahan had the initial burden to prove eligibility (including that the property value did not exceed $950), and submitted the probation report and plea paperwork.
The trial court granted Lenahan’s petition based on (1) statements in the probation report suggesting she did not perpetrate the burglaries and (2) the absence of a restitution award; it did not expressly find the property value was ≤ $950.
The Court of Appeal reversed: it held the petitioner has the initial burden to prove eligibility for Prop. 47 resentencing (including proof the property was ≤ $950) and Lenahan failed to meet that burden; reversal was without prejudice to filing a new petition with supporting evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Who bears initial burden to establish eligibility for Prop. 47 resentencing (specifically proof property value ≤ $950)?	The People: petitioner must prove eligibility, including property value ≤ $950.	Lenahan: by analogy to Prop. 36, prosecution should bear burden to show ineligibility once record of conviction is silent on value.	Petitioner (Lenahan) bears the initial burden to prove eligibility, including value ≤ $950.
Was the trial court’s factual basis for granting relief supported by substantial evidence?	The People: court relied on inadmissible or legally irrelevant sources (probation report; lack of restitution) and did not find value ≤ $950.	Lenahan: her record of conviction does not state value exceeded $950; lack of restitution supports de minimis value.	The court’s findings were insufficient and unsupported: probation report is not evidence for eligibility, and reserving restitution does not prove value ≤ $950.
Could the absence of a restitution award be treated as proof the loss was ≤ $950?	The People: no — reservation of restitution means loss was unproven, not necessarily ≤ $950.	Lenahan: lack of restitution implies de minimis loss and supports eligibility.	Absence of restitution did not establish property value ≤ $950; trial court’s inference was not supported.
Remedy when petitioner fails to prove eligibility at first petition?	The People: denial appropriate; appellant asks to clarify evidentiary standard.	Lenahan: (implicit) court properly granted relief.	Reversal of grant of relief without prejudice to a new petition that includes evidentiary support; court declines to adopt a universal "all available evidence" standard in this opinion.

Key Cases Cited

People v. Rivera, 233 Cal.App.4th 1085 (discussing Prop. 47 and its operation)
People v. Sherow, 239 Cal.App.4th 875 (petitioner must establish eligibility for Prop. 47 resentencing)
People v. Rivas-Colon, 241 Cal.App.4th 444 (same)
People v. Perkins, 244 Cal.App.4th 129 (affirmed denial where petitioner failed to prove property value; allowed refiling)
People v. Bush, 245 Cal.App.4th 992 (same principle on petitioner’s initial burden)
People v. Bradford, 227 Cal.App.4th 1322 (procedure under Prop. 36 where petitioner establishes initial eligibility)
People v. Trujillo, 40 Cal.4th 165 (definition and scope of "record of conviction")
People v. McGee, 38 Cal.4th 682 (when inquiry is limited to record of conviction)
People v. Elizalde, 61 Cal.4th 523 (standard on drawing inferences from evidence)