People v. Rivas-Colon
241 Cal. App. 4th 444
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- In 2013 Rivas-Colon was arrested after filling bags with 38 baseball hats from a retail store; police and a store receipt listed the total value as $1,437.74.
- He pleaded guilty to second-degree commercial burglary (§ 459) and was placed on probation after stipulating to a factual basis that included the police report valuation.
- After Proposition 47 (Nov. 2014) created a resentencing mechanism (§ 1170.18) and made shoplifting a misdemeanor when loss ≤ $950 (§ 459.5), Rivas-Colon petitioned for resentencing.
- The People opposed, relying on the police report and receipt showing value > $950; the trial court denied the petition for resentencing.
- Rivas-Colon appealed, arguing: (1) the prosecution bore the burden to prove value > $950; (2) the trial court erred by relying on the police report and receipt; (3) he was entitled to a jury trial on value; and (4) trial counsel was ineffective for not presenting value evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden of proof on resentencing eligibility | People: petitioner must prove eligibility; court may deny if petitioner offers no evidence | Rivas-Colon: prosecution must prove loss > $950 to defeat petition; petitioner presumptively entitled | Held: Petitioner bears initial burden to prove eligibility, including that loss ≤ $950; denial proper where petitioner offered no evidence (Sherow followed) |
| Use of police report/receipt as evidence | People: court may consider submitted documents showing value | Rivas-Colon: trial court erred by relying on those documents (claimed improper) | Held: Court did not decide scope of permissible evidence; denial upheld on other grounds (no need to resolve evidentiary claim) |
| Right to jury trial on value at resentencing | People: resentencing is retrospective lenity; no Sixth Amendment jury right for eligibility facts | Rivas-Colon: Apprendi/Blakely require jury determination of value because it affects offense classification | Held: No right to jury trial on eligibility facts in §1170.18 proceedings; Apprendi does not apply to retrospective resentencing (Dillon/Kaulick/Bradford) |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to prove value | People: record gives no basis to find counsel deficient; strategic reasons possible | Rivas-Colon: counsel ineffective for not presenting/value-limiting evidence or objecting | Held: Claim rejected—record does not show counsel acted unreasonably and such claims ordinarily raised on habeas; no presumptive ineffectiveness shown |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sherow, 239 Cal.App.4th 875 (Cal. Ct. App.) (petitioner bears burden to prove loss ≤ $950 for Proposition 47 resentencing)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (U.S. 2010) (Apprendi-type jury rights do not apply to limits on downward sentence modifications)
- People v. Kaulick, 215 Cal.App.4th 1279 (Cal. Ct. App.) (Proposition 36/retrospective resentencing does not trigger Sixth Amendment jury requirement)
- People v. Bradford, 227 Cal.App.4th 1322 (Cal. Ct. App.) (court factfinding in resentencing contexts does not implicate Apprendi jury right)
- People v. Nguyen, 61 Cal.4th 1015 (Cal.) (standard for ineffective assistance review)