Filed 10/23/17 P. v. Bradley CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ANTHONY BRADLEY,
Defendant and Appellant.
| C083751
(Super. Ct. No. 09F01392)
|
Defendant Anthony Bradley appeals from the trial court’s denial of his Penal Code section 1170.18[1] application to redesignate his conviction for grand theft from a person (§ 487, subd. (c)) from a felony to a misdemeanor. He contends the trial court erred in finding his crime ineligible for resentencing. We agree and shall reverse and remand for additional proceedings on the application.
I. BACKGROUND
Defendant pleaded no contest to grand theft from a person, a felony.
In October 2015, defendant filed a petition to designate his offense a misdemeanor pursuant to section 1170.18. The prosecution filed a response claiming defendant failed to carry his burden of proving the value of the items stolen was $950 or less, the allegations of violence surrounding the offense rendered it ineligible for relief, and granting relief would deprive the People the value of their plea bargain. In response, defendant filed a statement of additional proof that included a police report relating that three items were stolen, a bracelet worth $25, a wallet worth $1, and a Blackberry phone worth $100.
The trial court denied the petition “due to: Ineligible conviction(s)—[t]he intent of Proposition 47 was to not include violent crimes, such as . . . [s]ection 487[, subdivision] (c). The underlying facts indicate violent theft from the victim.”
II. DISCUSSION
Defendant contends the trial court erred in finding his crime not eligible for relief under section 1170.18. The Attorney General concedes the point, and we accept the concession.
In November 2014, the voters passed Proposition 47, which reduced a number of felony or wobbler offenses to misdemeanors. (See People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1091.) “A person who has completed his or her sentence for a conviction, whether by trial or plea, of a felony or felonies who would have been guilty of a misdemeanor under this act had this act been in effect at the time of the offense, may file an application before the trial court that entered the judgment of conviction in his or her case to have the felony conviction or convictions designated as misdemeanors.” (§ 1170.18, subd. (f).)
Proposition 47 added section 490.2, subdivision (a), which states: “Notwithstanding Section 487 or any other provision of law defining grand theft, obtaining any 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, except that such person may instead be punished pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 if that person has one or more prior convictions for an offense specified in clause (iv) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 667 or for an offense requiring registration pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 290.”
Section 487 states in pertinent part: “Grand theft is theft committed in any of the following cases: [¶] . . . [¶] (c) When the property is taken from the person of another.”
Section 490.2 could not be more clear on this point. All crimes defining grand theft, including every form of grand theft set forth in section 487 is petty theft when the value of the theft does not exceed $950. There is no exception for a violent commission of grand theft. Invocation of a canon of statutory construction cannot support disregarding the plain statutory language. “If the plain language of a statute . . . is clear and unambiguous, our task is at an end and there is no need to resort to the canons of construction or extrinsic aids to interpretation.” (Butts v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 825, 838.)
Section 1170.18 contains no exception for qualifying offenses committed in a violent manner. Section 490.2 does not apply if the defendant “has one or more prior convictions for an offense specified in clause (iv) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 667 or for an offense requiring registration pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 290.” (§ 490.2, subd. (a).) Neither exception applies here. There are no other exceptions for a qualifying grand theft conviction when a defendant applies to redesignate the conviction.
While it appears from this record that the amount of the theft in question did not exceed $950, rendering defendant eligible for relief, the matter was never addressed by the trial court.[2] We shall therefore reverse and remand for additional proceedings.
III. DISPOSITION
The trial court’s order denying defendant’s application is reversed and the matter is remanded for additional proceedings on the application.
/S/
RENNER, J.
We concur:
/S/
BLEASE, Acting P. J.
/S/
DUARTE, J.
[1] Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
[2] The People’s opposition, filed in December 2015, stated that defendant was still on parole for his offense. A defendant on parole must apply for resentencing rather than redesignation of the offense (People v. Lewis (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 1085, 1093-1094), and is therefore subject to denial of relief if the trial court finds resentencing defendant would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. (§ 1170.18, subd. (b).) While it is unlikely that defendant is still on parole, this possibility provides an additional reason to remand for additional proceedings rather than remanding with directions to grant the application.
