THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER MARKS, Defendant and Appellant.
No. E063516
Fourth Dist., Div. Two.
Dec. 23, 2015.
331
John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney Genеral, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Barry Carlton, Seth Friedman and Sabrina Y. Lane-Erwin, Deputy Attorneys Generаl, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
McKINSTER, J.—
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Christopher Marks appeals from an order denying his petition fоr recall and reduction of sentence under
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 10, 2012, defendant entered a plea of guilty to corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant (
On December 29, 2014, defendant filed a petition for resentencing in the current case under
Defendant submitted a letter regarding his petition in which defendant stated, “I petition the 4 [sic] prior possession charges. Prop #47.” The trial court held an ex parte hearing at which the court considered defendant‘s letter and again denied the request for resentencing on the ground that his violation of
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends thаt his prior convictions for violation of
Standard of Review
When interpreting a voter initiative, “we apply the same principlеs that govern statutory construction.” (People v. Rizo (2000) 22 Cal.4th 681, 685 [94 Cal.Rptr.2d 375, 996 P.2d 27].) We first look ” ‘to the language of the statute, giving the words their ordinаry meaning.’ ” (Ibid.) We construe the statutory language “in the context of the statute as a whole and the overall statutory scheme.” (Ibid.) If the language is ambiguous, we look to ” ‘other indicia of the voters’ intent, particularly the analyses and arguments contained in the official ballot pamphlet.’ ” (Ibid.)
Overview of Proposition 47 and Section 1170.18
On November 4, 2014, voters аpproved Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, which went into effect the next day. (People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1089 [183 Cal.Rptr.3d 362].) Proposition 47 reduced certain drug- and theft-related crimes from felonies or wobblers to misdemeanors for qualified defendants and added, among other statutory provisions,
Defendant‘s Petition
Although, as noted, defendant‘s petition for resentencing bore the current case number, he argues on appeal that this court should construe the petition as relating to his prior сonvictions under
The relief defendant seeks is not resentencing for his former conviсtions, but reclassification of those convictions as misdemeanors.
The complaint in the current case shows that defendant was convicted of his
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Ramirez, P. J., and Hollenhorst, J., concurred.
