People v. Ortiz CA3, C079847

Ricardo Abel Ortiz was convicted by jury of unlawfully driving/taking a vehicle (Veh. Code §10851) and driving on a suspended license; sentenced to 18 months county jail (split term) plus 18 months mandatory supervision.
Police stopped the stolen 1989 Nissan Pathfinder; the vehicle was running without a key; Ortiz admitted using scissors to start it and said only stolen cars start without keys; tools (scissors, screwdriver) found in vehicle.
Prior 1995 incident introduced under Evidence Code §1101(b) showed Ortiz driving a 1983 Buick with broken ignition/locks and no key, and admitting he took the car.
Defense presented witnesses suggesting others used/sold similar vehicles and that Ortiz’s brother drove a blue truck; no record of the Pathfinder’s value was established at trial.
On appeal Ortiz raised (1) prosecutorial misconduct for invoking peer pressure in closing argument and (2) that his §10851 conviction should be eligible for misdemeanor treatment under Prop. 47/Pen. Code §490.2.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutorial misconduct for invoking peer pressure in rebuttal	Prosecutor argued jurors would tell friends they convicted based on evidence and urged them to "do the right thing"; the People maintain closing was a permissible argument and court admonition cured any impropriety	Ortiz argued prosecutor improperly appealed to peer pressure, encouraging conviction for social approval rather than evidence, and that harm was incurable	No forfeiture cure needed; defendant forfeited by not objecting, and in any event the trial court’s immediate, correct admonition cured any impropriety — claim fails
Applicability of Prop. 47 / §490.2 to Veh. Code §10851 (auto theft)	People argued Prop. 47 and §490.2 amend only Penal statutes defining grand theft (e.g., §487); §10851 criminalizes both theft and nontheft conduct and was not amended by Prop. 47	Ortiz argued §10851 is an auto-theft statute and should fall within §490.2’s ‘‘notwithstanding §487 or any other provision defining grand theft’’ language so low‑value vehicle thefts (<$950) should be misdemeanors	Court held §10851 proscribes theft and non‑theft (joyriding) conduct and is not a statute that defines grand theft; §490.2 therefore does not apply and Prop. 47 did not reduce §10851 punishments — claim denied

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishes Miranda waiver requirement)
People v. Hill, 17 Cal.4th 800 (1998) (admonition may be insufficient where misconduct repeatedly injects erroneous law/fact)
People v. Sanchez, 26 Cal.4th 834 (2001) (jurors presumed able to follow instructions)
People v. Garza, 35 Cal.4th 866 (2005) (explaining §10851 covers both theft and temporary deprivation/joyriding)
Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U.S. 522 (1987) (courts should not rewrite clear statutory text to effectuate broader purpose)
People v. Morales, 63 Cal.4th 399 (2016) (statutory purpose does not override clear statutory text regarding Prop. 47 application)