P. v. Champagne CA6
Defendant Anthony Charles Champagne appeals from an order denying his Proposition 47 petition for resentencing on a second degree burglary conviction. He contends the trial court erred because the facts of the offense constitute a misdemeanor under current law, so he qualifies for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18, subdivision (a) (enacted by Proposition 47). As we will explain, defendant presented no evidence to the trial court regarding the circumstances of the offense and therefore necessarily did not meet his burden of proving eligibility for relief. For that reason, we must affirm the order, without prejudice to defendant bringing a new Proposition 47 petition that is supported by adequate evidence.
Comments on P. v. Champagne CA6