People v. Martinez CA5
F070993
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 7, 2016Background
- Eric Lee Martinez pled nolo contendere (Apr. 2, 2014) to one count of receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code § 496d) and admitted a prior prison term; sentenced to four years.
- He was found driving a stolen 1989 Pontiac reported stolen over a month earlier; he claimed he had permission from someone named "Mike."
- Martinez petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code § 1170.18 (Proposition 47), asserting the vehicle's value was about $300 and that his conviction should be reduced to a misdemeanor.
- The trial court denied the Proposition 47 resentencing petition; Martinez appealed.
- Proposition 47 amended several theft-related statutes (e.g., Pen. Code § 496, § 490.2) and created § 1170.18 allowing resentencing for specified sections but did not amend § 496d.
- The Court of Appeal considered statutory text, voter materials (Legislative Analyst and Voter Information Guide), and principles of initiative interpretation to determine whether § 496d was encompassed by Proposition 47.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a conviction under Pen. Code § 496d (receiving a stolen vehicle) is eligible for resentencing under Prop. 47 (Pen. Code § 1170.18) | The People argued Proposition 47 did not amend § 496d and § 1170.18 limits resentencing to the listed sections; thus Martinez is ineligible. | Martinez argued § 496d is a theft-related offense and Prop. 47's amendment of § 496 (and § 490.2) shows voter intent to treat receiving stolen property under $950 as a misdemeanor, so § 496d should be covered. | The court affirmed denial: Prop. 47 did not amend § 496d nor include it in § 1170.18; § 496d is a separate statute (not theft) and the omission indicates no intent to modify it. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Morales, 63 Cal.4th 399 (explains Prop. 47's purpose and that it reclassified certain felonies/wobblers)
- People v. Bradshaw, 246 Cal.App.4th 1251 (discusses § 1170.18 resentencing mechanics)
- People v. Park, 56 Cal.4th 782 (principles for interpreting voter initiatives; presumption against repeal by implication)
- People v. Arroyo, 62 Cal.4th 589 (statutory construction rules applied to initiatives)
- People v. Ceja, 49 Cal.4th 1 (distinguishing receiving stolen property from theft convictions)
- People v. Licas, 41 Cal.4th 362 (presumption that electorate knows existing law when enacting statutes)
- People v. Superior Court (Cervantes), 225 Cal.App.4th 1007 (omission of related statutory provisions indicates different legislative intent)