People
v.
Vaughn

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWOSep 20, 2017
E066931 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 20, 2017)

E066931

09-20-2017

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARK AARON VAUGHN, Defendant and Appellant.

Cindy Brines, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, and Barry Carlton and Sabrina Y. Lane-Erwin, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. CR36346) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky Dugan, Judge. Affirmed. Cindy Brines, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, and Barry Carlton and Sabrina Y. Lane-Erwin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant, Mark Aaron Vaughn, filed a petition for reclassification of his felony offense conviction to a misdemeanor pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18, which the court denied. On appeal, defendant contends the court erred in denying his petition. We affirm.

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. --------

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

By felony information filed August 6, 1990, the People charged defendant with receipt of stolen property, "a 1990 CHEVROLET S-10 PICK-UP IN PARTS" (count I; Pen. Code, § 496); the theft of the same vehicle (count II; Veh. Code, § 10851); and the receipt of a stolen jet ski (count III; Pen. Code, § 496). On August 7, 1990, defendant pled guilty to the count I offense and admitted his commission of the offense constituted a violation of his probation in another matter. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the court sentenced defendant to 16 months' imprisonment concurrent to the term imposed on his violation of probation. The court dismissed the remaining counts.

On June 1, 2015, defendant filed a petition for reclassification of the offense for which he was convicted from a felony to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 1170.18. Defendant checked a box indicating he believed the value of the stolen property did not exceed $950. In a response dated July 24, 2015, the People contended a hearing should be set to determine the value of the stolen property.

At a hearing on December 11, 2015, defendant's counsel noted that the stolen property consisted of "a 1990 Chevrolet S-10 truck in parts." The People noted: "I know there was a stolen transmission, engine, bumper, [and] grill. The truck was worth $12,000." The court denied the petition, finding the value of the stolen property exceeded $950.

II. DISCUSSION

Defendant contends the court violated defendant's right to due process by denying the petition without taking any evidence and citing to any evidence. We disagree.

"'On November 4, 2014, the voters enacted Proposition 47, "the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act" (hereafter Proposition 47), which went into effect the next day. [Citation.]' [Citation.] Section 1170.18 'was enacted as part of Proposition 47.' [Citation.]" (T.W. v. Superior Court (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 646, 649, fn. 2.) Section 1170.18, subdivision (f), provides a mechanism by which a person who has completed his sentence for a felony offense may petition for reclassification of the offense as a misdemeanor in accordance with the statutes added or amended by Proposition 47.

The petitioner bears the burden of proof to show eligibility for reclassification under section 1170.18. This includes, in cases of theft, that the value of the property stolen did not exceed $950. (People v. Sherow (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 875, 880 [the defendant failed his burden to establish eligibility for resentencing under § 1170.18 by failing to prove the value of the items he was convicted of taking did not exceed $950]; accord, People v. Perkins (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 129, 136-137.)

Here, defendant was afforded a hearing at which he was represented by counsel. Counsel offered no evidence that the car parts defendant pled guilty to receiving were worth $950 or less. Therefore, defendant failed to carry his burden and the court properly denied his petition.

III. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKINSTER


J. We concur: RAMIREZ


P. J. MILLER


J.