Opinion
E065754
05-02-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEVEN CLARK GOODMAN, Defendant and Appellant.
Benjamin B. Kington, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra and Kamala D. Harris, Attorneys General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Jennifer B. Truong, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. BAF10000411) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky Dugan, Judge. Reversed with directions. Benjamin B. Kington, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra and Kamala D. Harris, Attorneys General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Jennifer B. Truong, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Steven Clark Goodman appeals from the trial court's denial of his petition under Proposition 47 and Penal Code section 1170.18 to reclassify his felony conviction of petty theft with a prior (§ 484, subd. (a), former § 666, subd. (a)) to misdemeanor petty theft (§ 490.2). On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his petition because: (1) Proposition 47 eliminated the crime of petty theft with a prior under amended section 666 for most persons, regardless of the underlying facts of the offense; (2) the value of the property taken is irrelevant under amended section 666; (3) to the extent the trial court was required to consider the value of the property, it erred by using the rental contract amount as the value of the property; (4) the police report was outside of and contradicted by the record of conviction; (5) the trial court erred by using the rental contract amount rather than determining the fair market value of the washer and dryer; and (6) denial of the petition in violation of the procedure set forth in section 1170.18 deprived defendant of his due process rights. For the reasons explained below, we reverse with directions.
All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The factual background is taken from the police report.
In March 2010, defendant rented a washer and dryer from Rent A Center. He had paid $242.32 towards the contract, but still owed over $1,200.
On June 22, 2010, defendant sold the washer and dryer, which appeared to be brand new, to Jason Pritchard. The next day, defendant filed a report with police, claiming the washer and dryer had been stolen from his garage. Defendant also reported the washer and dryer as stolen to Rent A Center. However, when a store representative went to defendant's home to verify his claim, Pritchard approached the representative as he was leaving the area and told him that defendant had sold the washer and dryer to Pritchard. Pritchard was concerned the items were stolen because they both had Rent A Center stickers on them and defendant only wanted $200 for the washer and dryer that looked new. The representative called police, and police arrested defendant that day.
On August 19, 2010, defendant pleaded guilty to petty theft with a prior (§ 484/former § 666), and admitted he had suffered a prior strike conviction for residential burglary (§§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(1) and 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). In return, defendant was sentenced to a total term of two years eight months in state prison.
After defendant completed his sentence, on December 1, 2015, pursuant to section 1170.18, subdivision (f), defendant filed a petition to reclassify his petty theft with a prior conviction to a misdemeanor. The People filed an opposition, stating that "per the report the washer and dryer rental from Rent A Center cost over $1200 (for the contract). [Defendant] still owed over $1200 when he tried to sell it to someone."
On February 24, 2016, the trial court denied defendant's petition because the "loss exceeded $950."
On April 4, 2016, defendant filed a notice of appeal from the judgment.
On July 14, 2016, the trial court issued an amended order denying defendant's petition, listing an additional reason for the denial. The trial court noted that "Per District Attorney—Defendant has not shown evidence that value of property was under $950.00."
II
DISCUSSION
Defendant makes various arguments relating to the trial court's finding he did not qualify for reclassification of his felony petty theft with a prior conviction to a misdemeanor. In part, he asserts that Proposition 47 eliminated the crime of petty theft with a prior for most persons and that section 666, as amended by Proposition 47, does not require an examination of the value of the property taken.
A. Standard of Review
When interpreting a voter initiative, we apply the same principles that govern statutory construction. (People v. Briceno (2004) 34 Cal.4th 451, 459 (Briceno); People v. Rizo (2000) 22 Cal.4th 681, 685-686 (Rizo).) We first look " ' "to the language of the statute, giving the words their ordinary meaning." ' " (Briceno at p. 459; Rizo at p. 685.) " 'The statutory language must also be construed in the context of the statute as a whole and the overall statutory scheme [in light of the electorate's intent]. [Citation.] When the language is ambiguous, "we refer to other indicia of the voters' intent, particularly the analyses and arguments contained in the official ballot pamphlet." [Citation.]' [Citation.] In other words, 'our primary purpose is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the voters who passed the initiative measure.' " (Briceno, at p. 459.) Our review is de novo. (California Chamber of Commerce v. Brown (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 233, 248.)
B. Proposition 47
On November 4, 2014, voters approved 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.) Proposition 47 reduced certain drug possession and theft-related crimes from felonies or wobblers to misdemeanors for qualified defendants and added, among other statutory provisions, section 1170.18. Section 1170.18 created a process through which persons previously convicted of crimes as felonies, which would be misdemeanors under the new definitions in Proposition 47, may petition for resentencing. (See generally People v. Lynall (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1108-1109; People v. Diaz (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1323, 1327-1328 (Diaz).) Under section 1170.18, a person currently serving a felony sentence or a person who has completed his or her sentence, whether by trial or plea, for an offense that is now a misdemeanor under Proposition 47, may petition before the trial court that entered the judgment of conviction in his or her case to have the felony conviction designated as a misdemeanor. (§ 1170.18, subds. (a) & (f).)
One of the nonserious crimes affected by Proposition 47 is petty theft with a prior under former section 666. "For most persons, the crime of petty theft with a prior, for which the punishment is imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison, is eliminated. As amended by the initiative, section 666 applies only if: (1) the person is convicted of petty theft in the current case; (2) has served a term of imprisonment for a prior conviction of 'petty theft, grand theft, a conviction pursuant to subdivision (d) or (e) of Section 368 [(elder abuse)], auto theft under Section 10851 of the Vehicle Code, burglary, carjacking, robbery, or a felony violation of Section 496'; and (3) 'is required to register pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act, or . . . has a prior violent or serious felony conviction, as specified in clause (iv) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 667, or has a conviction pursuant to subdivision (d) or (e) of Section 368.' (§ 666, subds. (a), (b).)" (Diaz, supra, 238 Cal.App.4th at p. 1330, fn. omitted.)
As amended, section 666 provides: "(a) Notwithstanding Section 490, any person described in subdivision (b) who, having been convicted of petty theft, grand theft, a conviction pursuant to subdivision (d) or (e) of Section 368, auto theft under Section 10851 of the Vehicle Code, burglary, carjacking, robbery, or a felony violation of Section 496, and having served a term of imprisonment therefor in any penal institution or having been imprisoned therein as a condition of probation for that offense, and who is subsequently convicted of petty theft, is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison. [¶] (b) Subdivision (a) shall apply to any person who is required to register pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act, or who has a prior violent or serious felony conviction, as specified in clause (iv) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 667, or has a conviction pursuant to subdivision (d) or (e) of Section 368. [¶] (c) This section shall not be construed to preclude prosecution or punishment pursuant to subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, of Section 667, or Section 1170.12."
Proposition 47 also added section 490.2, subdivision (a), which provides in part: "Notwithstanding Section 487 or any other provision of law defining grand theft, obtaining property by theft where the value of the money, labor, real or personal property taken does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars ($950) shall be considered petty theft and shall be punished as a misdemeanor."
C. Denial of Petition
Defendant essentially contends that his plea of guilty to petty theft with a prior conclusively adjudicated that the value of the property stolen was $950 or less, and he therefore met his burden of establishing entitlement to reclassification of his conviction under Proposition 47 and section 1170.18. (See People v. Perkins (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 129, 136; People v. Sherow (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 875, 878.)
Here, under the current statutory definitions, defendant's petty theft with a prior conviction would have constituted a misdemeanor had it been prosecuted after the passage of Proposition 47. "Theft is divided into two degrees, the first of which is termed grand theft; the second, petty theft." (§ 486.) "Grand theft is theft committed in any of the following cases: [¶] (a) When the money, labor, or real or personal property taken is of a value exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950) [with exceptions not here relevant]." (§ 487, subd. (a).) "Theft in other cases is petty theft." (§ 488.) Defendant's plea to petty theft with a prior constituted an admission that he took property valued at $950 or less, and the People then abandoned any effort to prove that the property was worth more than $950. In other words, the conviction adjudicated the value of the property taken.
The People contend that section 490.2 required defendant to prove the conduct underlying his petty theft with a prior involved property valued at less than $950, because section 1170.18 applies to defendants who "would have been guilty of a misdemeanor under Proposition 47 had this Act been in effect at the time the offense was committed." The People also assert that the trial court "must also decide whether a petitioner would have been guilty of violating a newly created or amended section had that section been in effect at the time of the crime," regardless of the previously charged offense. However, to accept the People's argument would be to determine that defendant committed a crime other than that to which he pleaded guilty. (See §§ 486-488.) Defendant pleaded guilty to petty theft with a prior under former section 666. We conclude that as a matter of law, the trial court may not now consider the conviction a grand theft. (See People v. Maestas (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 247, 252-253.) The conviction itself establishes the value of the property taken, and defendant therefore met his burden. We will reverse the trial court's denial of defendant's petition for reclassification of his conviction of petty theft with a prior.
Because we find defendant's conviction of petty theft with a prior itself establishes the value of the property, we need not address defendant's remaining contentions. --------
Although we conclude defendant's conviction met the threshold qualification for relief under Proposition 47 and section 1170.18, the trial court must further determine on remand whether defendant is otherwise eligible for relief, including the determination of whether resentencing defendant would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. (§ 1170.18, subd. (b).)
III
DISPOSITION
The order denying defendant's petition for reclassification of his conviction of petty theft with a prior is reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J. We concur: HOLLENHORST
J. McKINSTER
J.