People v. Perkins, 244 Cal. App. 4th 129

Clayton Omar Perkins was convicted by jury of multiple offenses, including felony receipt of stolen property (possession of Christi L.’s credit card) and three counts of grand theft of firearms; he was sentenced to an aggregate 20 years 8 months.
Proposition 47 (Nov. 2014) reclassified certain theft offenses (including § 496 receipt of stolen property and § 487(d)(2) grand theft of firearm) as misdemeanors when the value of the property in each offense did not exceed $950, and created a resentencing procedure (§ 1170.18).
Perkins filed a Proposition 47 resentencing petition using a form that checked § 496 but (due to an erroneous form) did not properly request resentencing for his § 487 firearm theft convictions; the petition alleged values were under $950 but included no supporting evidence, declarations, or record citations.
The district attorney opposed, asserting values exceeded $950 (also without supporting evidence). The superior court summarily denied Perkins’ petition, stating losses were over $950, without explanation.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial for the § 496 conviction because Perkins bore the burden to submit evidence of value and did not; the court declined to rule on the omitted § 487 requests but allowed Perkins to file new petitions for both the § 496 and § 487 convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the superior court erred by denying the § 496 resentencing petition based on a finding the stolen property exceeded $950	People argued the value exceeded $950 and denial was proper	Perkins argued the court lacked substantial evidence to find the credit card’s value exceeded $950 and therefore denial was error	Court held petitioner bears burden to show eligibility; Perkins’ petition lacked supporting evidence, so denial was proper (affirmed)
Whether the superior court erred by not considering resentencing for the § 487 firearm theft convictions	People noted the form did not properly request § 487 relief and did not concede entitlement	Perkins argued the court failed to address those convictions despite Proposition 47 reclassification	Court held the original form omitted § 487 (court/form error) but Perkins did not properly request relief; he may file new petitions for the firearm counts
Burden and admissible evidence for Proposition 47 petitions	People argued court may resolve petitions from filings/record	Perkins argued court should have held hearing or relied on trial record	Court held Evidence Code § 500 places burden on petitioner to establish eligibility; petition must include evidence (declaration, record citations, or other probative proof); courts may rely on filings but may also invite further briefing/hearing when factual disputes arise

People v. Trinh, 59 Cal.4th 216 (establishes standard: legal questions de novo; factual findings for substantial evidence)
Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma County Union High School Dist., 29 Cal.4th 911 (statutory interpretation de novo)
People v. Shabazz, 237 Cal.App.4th 303 (discusses effect of Prop 47 on § 496)
People v. Sherow, 239 Cal.App.4th 875 (petitioner bears burden to establish eligibility; petitions should include evidence or testimony)
People v. Bradford, 227 Cal.App.4th 1322 (when eligibility turns on extra-record facts, courts should invite further briefing before denying)
People v. Dawkins, 230 Cal.App.4th 991 (court may be affirmed on any correct legal basis even if trial court’s reasoning was inadequate)