People v. Solis
200 Cal. Rptr. 3d 463
Cal. Ct. App. 2nd2016Background
- In 2012 Solis pleaded guilty to felony Vehicle Code §10851(a) (taking/driving a vehicle); court suspended sentence and placed her on probation; other counts dismissed.
- In 2015 Solis petitioned under Prop 47 (§1170.18) to recall and resentence based on Penal Code §490.2 (reclassifying theft of property ≤ $950 as petty theft/misdemeanor).
- The trial court denied the petition as a matter of law, holding §10851 convictions are not eligible for Prop 47 relief; no factual findings were made about intent or vehicle value.
- On appeal Solis argued §490.2’s reclassification of low-value thefts covers at least some §10851 convictions (those involving intent to permanently deprive or theft of a car worth ≤ $950).
- The court framed the question as purely legal and reviewed de novo whether §490.2 applies to §10851 convictions.
- The court affirmed: §490.2 (Prop 47) does not make §10851 offenses eligible for resentencing under §1170.18.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §490.2 (Prop 47) applies to Vehicle Code §10851 convictions | People: §10851 is not covered by §490.2; Prop 47 excludes §10851 | Solis: §490.2’s broad reclassification of theft ≤ $950 should cover §10851 when conduct amounts to theft (intent to permanently deprive or car value ≤ $950) | Held: §490.2 does not apply to §10851; all §10851 convictions ineligible for Prop 47 relief |
| Whether a §10851 conviction that was actually theft (intent to permanently deprive) is eligible | People: even theft-theory §10851 convictions are governed by the specific §10851 scheme and thus excluded | Solis: when §10851 conduct satisfies theft elements, it should fall within §490.2’s reclassification | Held: Specificity and structure of Prop 47 show voters did not intend §490.2 to override §10851; specific statute (§10851) controls over the general (§490.2) |
| Whether grammatical/plain-text reading of §490.2 controls | People: §490.2’s language is broad but must be harmonized with entire initiative | Solis: plain breadth of §490.2 favors inclusion of §10851-theft | Held: Court reads Prop 47 as a whole; avoiding surplusage and honoring specific provisions leads to excluding §10851 |
| Whether rule of lenity or burden issues change outcome | Solis: ambiguities should be resolved for defendant | People: burden and sufficiency issues aside, legal ineligibility disposes case | Held: No need to invoke lenity; legal interpretation resolves ineligibility; court did not reach burden-of-proof questions |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Garza, 35 Cal.4th 866 (establishes §10851 can be violated either by intent to permanently deprive (theft) or by temporary deprivation (joyriding))
- People v. Barrick, 33 Cal.3d 115 (discusses distinct acts of taking vs. driving and §10851’s relationship to grand-theft-auto)
- People v. Davis, 19 Cal.4th 301 (theft requires intent to permanently deprive; §484 consolidates larceny/theft forms)
- People v. Avery, 27 Cal.4th 49 (importing common-law specific intent into §484; intent to permanently deprive required for theft)
- Bradwell v. Superior Court, 156 Cal.App.4th 265 (special statutory schemes can be exceptions to general theft statutes)
- People v. Jenkins, 10 Cal.4th 234 (interpret statutes as a whole and avoid construing language as surplusage)