Filed 7/11/17 P. v. Gorman 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

JAMES A. GORMAN III,

Defendant and Appellant.
C082712

(Super. Ct. No. 10F05123)







Defendant James A. Gorman III appeals from the trial court’s denial of his Penal Code section 1170.18 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, reverse, and remand with directions to grant the application.
BACKGROUND
On July 25, 2010, defendant set up a meeting with a man and his wife to possibly purchase a PlayStation 3 the man was selling on Craigslist. At the meeting, defendant pulled a gun out of his sweatshirt pocket, pointed it at the man, took the PlayStation console, and ran away. The console was worth $300.
Defendant pleaded no contest to grand theft from a person and was placed on five years’ formal probation as part of a stipulated disposition.
On July 7, 2015, defendant filed an application to redesignate his offense as a misdemeanor pursuant to section 1170.18. The trial court denied the application, finding the crime was ineligible for relief due to “being an extremely violent crime (gunpoint). Penal Code Section 487[, subdivision] (c) is still a separate and distinct crime, not dependent on the value of property taken. Rules of statutory construction require that the more specific language of Penal Code Section 487[, subdivision] (c) be followed.”
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. 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. [Citation.]” (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.
Defendant stole less than $950 worth of property. He has no disqualifying criminal record, and the manner in which he committed the theft is irrelevant to whether he qualifies for relief. The trial court should have granted his application.
DISPOSITION
The trial court’s order denying defendant’s application under section 1170.18 is reversed and the matter is remanded with directions to enter an order granting his application to redesignate his conviction for grand theft to petty theft (§ 490.2).



NICHOLSON , J.



We concur:



RAYE , P. J.




MURRAY , J.