Filed 5/18/18 P. v. Sauceda CA5
Opinion on remand from Supreme Court
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JUAN ANTONIO SAUCEDA,

Defendant and Appellant.

F071531

(Super. Ct. No. 05CM4286 & 06CM0096)


OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Thomas DeSantos, Judge.
Theresa Osterman Stevenson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris and Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Carlos A. Martinez, Kathleen A. McKenna and F. Matt Chen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appellant Juan Antonio Sauceda appeals from the denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18, a statute added by Proposition 47. Appellant unsuccessfully requested a reduction in the sentence imposed on his prior conviction for theft and unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). Appellant contends that a conviction under Vehicle Code section 10851 is eligible for resentencing under Proposition 47 because the voters intended that Proposition 47 change the punishment scheme for all automobile thefts through Penal Code section 490.2. Appellant further contends that equal protection concerns require treating convictions under Vehicle Code section 10851 the same as convictions for theft of all other property valued at less than $950, as convictions which are eligible for resentencing. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On April 28, 2006, appellant was sentenced in two separate cases. In Kings County Superior Court case No. 05CM4286, appellant received an eight-year sentence on a conviction under Vehicle Code section 10851, with a prior prison term enhancement. In Kings County Superior Court case No. 06CM0096, appellant received a consecutive eight-year sentence on a conviction under Penal Code section 4532, with a prior prison term enhancement. The facts supporting appellant’s prior convictions, including the conduct supporting his conviction and the value of the vehicle involved, are not within the record on appeal.
On December 22, 2014, appellant petitioned for resentencing under Proposition 47, alleging his conviction under Vehicle Code section 10851 was for auto theft and, thus, was subject to resentencing under Penal Code sections 490.2 and 1170.18. The trial court denied the petition.
This timely appeal followed. In our initial opinion, we affirmed appellant’s conviction. However, following an appeal to our Supreme Court, the case was remanded with instructions to reconsider our opinion in light of People v. Page (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1175 (Page).
DISCUSSION
In our prior opinion in this matter, we concluded appellant’s conviction under Vehicle Code section 10851 was not categorically defined as a theft offense and thus, the mere fact of conviction was insufficient to support resentencing. (People v. Sauceda (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 635, disapproved in part by Page, supra, 3 Cal.5th at page 1187, footnote 4.) In Page, our Supreme Court explained that “Proposition 47 makes some, though not all, section 10851 defendants eligible for resentencing: A defendant convicted and serving a felony sentence under Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a), for vehicle theft—taking a vehicle with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession—could (if the vehicle was worth $950 or less) receive only misdemeanor punishment pursuant to [Penal Code] section 490.2 and is thus eligible for resentencing under [Penal Code] section 1170.18.” (Page, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 1184.) Under the Supreme Court’s analysis, if a defendant can demonstrate conviction under the theft portion of Vehicle Code section 10851 relating to a vehicle worth less than $950, they are eligible for resentencing under Proposition 47.
In supplemental briefing, both appellant and the People agree this matter should be remanded to the trial court to provide appellant the opportunity to demonstrate eligibility under Page. Given the record in this matter, we agree. In the prior proceedings, appellant was not provided an opportunity to demonstrate eligibility for resentencing because his offense was deemed categorically ineligible. As our Supreme Court has explained that certain individuals convicted under Vehicle Code section 10851 are eligible for resentencing under Proposition 47, appellant should be provided an opportunity to demonstrate eligibility under that legal framework. (See Page, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 1188 [defendants bear the burden of demonstrating eligibility].) Because we agree to remand this matter, we do not need to review our prior conclusion that appellant cannot demonstrate an equal protection violation.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed and the matter remanded to provide appellant an opportunity to demonstrate eligibility under Proposition 47.