People v. PagePeople v. Page
We conclude the lower courts erred in holding that a defendant with a
Because defendant‘s uncounseled petition in this case provides no information concerning the basis for his
In May 2012, defendant was charged by complaint with three felonies: taking or driving a vehicle in violation of
In June 2012, defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to all three counts and admitted one prior serious or violent felony conviction and two prior prison terms; the remaining enhancement allegations were dismissed on the People‘s motion. The court sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of 10 years and 8 months, the principal term being six years for count 1, the
On November 4, 2014, voters approved Proposition 47, and it became effective the following day. Approximately two weeks later, defendant, proceeding without counsel, submitted a “Motion for Modification of Sentence” form in which he asked for his sentence to be reduced based on “New law—Prop 47.” The superior court treated it as a petition for resentencing pursuant to
The Court of Appeal affirmed. The court reasoned that while Proposition 47 amended or added a number of criminal statutes to reduce felony punishment to the misdemeanor level, it did not do so for
We granted defendant‘s petition for review.
II.
Proposition 47‘s resentencing provision,
Under these provisions, a person serving a sentence for grand theft under
A.
We recognized the distinction between the theft and non-theft forms of the
By its terms, Proposition 47‘s new petty theft provision,
For those who, like defendant, were already serving felony sentences when Proposition 47 was passed,
Against this conclusion, the Attorney General makes two arguments based on the statutory text. First, the Attorney General relies on
The Attorney General‘s argument misconceives the nature of the list in
An interpretation under which the list in
Perhaps more significantly, two of the sections listed in
Second, the Attorney General notes that
This textual argument fails as well. In its central ameliorative provision,
Moreover, while
This reading of Proposition 47 is consistent with the voters’ instruction, in two uncodified sections of the initiative measure, that Proposition 47 be construed “broadly” and “liberally” to effectuate its purposes. (Voter Information Guide, supra, text of Prop. 47, §§ 15, 18, p. 74.) It is also consistent with Proposition 47‘s legislative history. In the voter guide to Proposition 47, the Legislative Analyst explained that under existing law, theft of property worth $950 or less could be charged as a felony “if the crime involves the theft of certain property (such as cars).” (Voter Information Guide, supra, analysis of Prop. 47 by Legis. Analyst, p. 35.) Under the initiative, according to the analysis, such crimes would no longer be charged as grand theft “solely because of the type of property involved.” (Ibid.) To the extent
Consistent with that straightforward reading of the statutory text, we conclude that obtaining an automobile worth $950 or less by theft constitutes petty theft under
Because we hold the statutory provisions of Proposition 47 allow resentencing on automobile theft convictions under
B.
A defendant seeking resentencing under
A resentencing court should ordinarily be able to determine from the record of conviction whether the
Whatever difficulties of proof defendants seeking relief under
C.
Defendant‘s petition included no allegations, testimony, or record references to show either that his
The judgment of the Court of Appeal is modified to provide that the superior court‘s order denying defendant‘s petition is affirmed without prejudice to consideration of a petition providing evidence of his eligibility.
KRUGER, J.
WE CONCUR:
CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J.
CHIN, J.
CORRIGAN, J.
LIU, J.
CUÉLLAR, J.
HULL, J.*
* Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.