From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hawkins

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
May 9, 2018
E063648 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 9, 2018)

Opinion

E063648

05-09-2018

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RYAN JAMES HAWKINS, Defendant and Appellant.

Steven A. Brody, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Barry Carlton, Seth Friedman, Sabrina Y. Lane-Erwin, and Kristen Hernandez, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. FVI024842) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Miriam Ivy Morton, Judge. Affirmed. Steven A. Brody, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Barry Carlton, Seth Friedman, Sabrina Y. Lane-Erwin, and Kristen Hernandez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant and appellant Ryan James Hawkins pleaded no contest to, among other things, a felony count of attempted unlawful driving of a vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851 and Penal Code section 664. Subsequently, California voters enacted Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, which among other things established a procedure for specified classes of offenders to have their felony convictions reduced to misdemeanors and be resentenced accordingly. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18.)

In a previous nonpublished opinion, we affirmed the trial court's denial of Hawkins's petition for resentencing pursuant to Proposition 47. (People v. Hawkins (May 25, 2016, E063648 [nonpub. opn.].) In this opinion, at the direction of the California Supreme Court, we reconsider the matter in light of People v. Page (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1175 (Page). For the reasons stated below, we affirm the trial court's order denying Hawkins's petition without prejudice to consideration of a subsequent petition providing evidence of eligibility.

II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On November 15, 2006, Hawkins pleaded no contest to a felony count of attempted unlawful driving of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 664), admitted a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, § 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), and was sentenced to four years in prison.

On April 22, 2015, Hawkins filed a petition for seeking to have his Penal Code section 10851 conviction designated as a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47. The petition was unsupported by any evidence, including any information regarding the value of the stolen vehicle or the circumstances of the offense. On May 15, 2015, the trial court denied the petition.

In our previous opinion in this matter, we affirmed the trial court's ruling, finding that the trial court correctly determined Hawkins to be ineligible for relief under Proposition 47, and rejecting his equal protection arguments. (People v. Hawkins, supra, E063648.) Hawkins sought review in the California Supreme Court. In an order filed March 21, 2018, the Supreme Court transferred the matter back to this court for reconsideration in light of Page, supra, 3 Cal.5th 1175. On March 22, 2018, we issued an order vacating our previous opinion and inviting the parties to submit supplemental briefing. Hawkins did so, but the People did not.

III. DISCUSSION

Hawkins contends in his supplemental briefing that Page requires that we affirm the denial of his petition without prejudice to the filing of a new petition providing evidence of his eligibility for relief under Proposition 47. We agree.

In Page, the Supreme Court held that Vehicle Code section 10851 convictions "are not categorically ineligible for resentencing" under Proposition 47. (Page, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 1189.) The defendant seeking resentencing bears the burden of establishing his or her eligibility by showing that the vehicle was worth $950 or less and the conviction "was based on theft of the vehicle rather than on posttheft driving [citation] or on a taking without the intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession [citation]." (Id. at p. 1188.) The petition at issue in Page "included no allegations, testimony, or record references to show either that his Vehicle Code section 10851 conviction rested on theft of the vehicle or that the vehicle's value was $950 or less." (Id. at p. 1189.) On that basis, the Supreme Court found the defendant's petition was properly denied, but that he was "entitled to an opportunity to file a new petition meeting the statutory requirements." (Ibid.)

In the present case, Hawkins's petition was not supported by any evidence of the vehicle's value. Furthermore, his plea form indicates that he pleaded guilty to "attempted unlawful driving of a vehicle," but nothing in the record of conviction establishes definitively whether he did so with or without the intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession. Hawkins's petition was therefore properly denied but, like the defendant in Page, he is entitled to an opportunity to file a new petition meeting the statutory requirements.

IV. DISPOSITION

The trial court's order denying Hawkins's petition is affirmed without prejudice to consideration of a petition providing evidence of his eligibility.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

CODRINGTON

J. We concur: MILLER

Acting P. J. FIELDS

J.


Summaries of

People v. Hawkins

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
May 9, 2018
E063648 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 9, 2018)
Case details for

People v. Hawkins

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RYAN JAMES HAWKINS, Defendant and…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

Date published: May 9, 2018

Citations

E063648 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 9, 2018)