194 Cal. Rptr. 3d 164
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Timothy Wayne Page pleaded guilty (June 8, 2012) to unlawful taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code §10851(a)), evading an officer (Veh. Code §2800.2(a)), and resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code §69); he admitted a prior strike and two prison priors and was sentenced to 10 years 8 months.
- After Proposition 47 (Nov. 2014) created Penal Code §1170.18 (resentencing mechanism) and added Penal Code §490.2 (reclassifying certain thefts ≤ $950 to petty theft), Page petitioned for resentencing under §1170.18 challenging his §10851 conviction.
- The trial court summarily denied the petition; Page appealed claiming eligibility under Proposition 47 for resentencing of his §10851 conviction.
- §1170.18 enumerates specific Penal Code sections amended or added by Proposition 47; Veh. Code §10851 is not among them and its statutory punishment language (wobbler) remained unchanged by Proposition 47.
- The court examined whether §10851, a lesser included offense of grand theft (Pen. Code §487(d)(1)), was covered indirectly by §490.2’s amendment of grand theft and concluded it was not; Page failed to allege vehicle value ≤ $950 in his petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a conviction under Veh. Code §10851 is eligible for resentencing under Proposition 47 (Pen. Code §1170.18) because §10851 is a lesser included offense of grand theft (Pen. Code §487) and §490.2 reduced certain grand thefts to misdemeanors | Proposition 47 applies only to the enumerated statutes; the People argued §10851 is not among them and its punishment language was unchanged | Page argued §1170.18 should apply to §10851 because §10851 is a lesser included offense of §487 and §490.2 reclassified some grand thefts (auto ≤ $950) to misdemeanors, so §10851 convictions based on low-value theft should be eligible | The court affirmed denial: §1170.18 does not include Veh. Code §10851; Proposition 47 did not amend §10851 and Page did not show the vehicle’s value ≤ $950, so he is not eligible for resentencing under §1170.18 |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Barrick, 33 Cal.3d 115 (lesser included offense relationship between Veh. Code §10851 and Pen. Code §487(d)(1))
- People v. Rivera, 233 Cal.App.4th 1085 (summary of Proposition 47’s effect and §1170.18 resentencing scheme)
- People v. Sherow, 239 Cal.App.4th 875 (burden on petitioner to prove eligibility, e.g., value ≤ $950)
- People v. Wilkinson, 33 Cal.4th 821 (rational-basis scrutiny; prosecutorial charging differences and unequal punishments do not necessarily violate equal protection)
- People v. Romo, 14 Cal.3d 189 (recognizing disparate punishments between grand theft and Veh. Code §10851 historically permissible)
- People v. Garza, 35 Cal.4th 866 (Veh. Code §10851 proscribes a wide range of conduct, including joyriding and theft)
- People v. Gaston, 74 Cal.App.4th 310 (characterizing §10851 as not a serious felony)
- People v. Superior Court (Alvarez), 14 Cal.4th 968 (listing Veh. Code §10851 as a wobbler)