People v. Marks , 196 Cal. Rptr. 3d 415 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • Filed 12/23/15
    CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION TWO
    THE PEOPLE,
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                   E063516
    v.                                                  (Super.Ct.No. RIF1202435)
    CHRISTOPHER MARKS,                                  OPINION
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky Dugan, Judge.
    Affirmed.
    John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
    Appellant.
    Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney
    General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Barry Carlton, Seth Friedman and
    Sabrina Y. Lane-Erwin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    1
    INTRODUCTION
    Defendant Christopher Marks appeals from an order denying his petition for recall
    and reduction of sentence under Penal Code section 1170.18 and Proposition 47.
    Defendant contends that his prior convictions for violation of Health and Safety Code
    section 11350 were eligible for resentencing, and this court should construe his petition
    as requesting such relief.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    On August 10, 2012, defendant entered a plea of guilty to corporal injury on a
    spouse or cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)—count 1) and misdemeanor criminal
    threat (Pen. Code, § 422—count 2). Defendant admitted the allegations of six prior
    prison term convictions (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), three of which were for
    violations of Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a). Defendant was
    initially granted probation, but probation was later revoked and defendant was sentenced
    to eight years in state prison (the low term of two years for count 1, plus six years for the
    prior prison terms).
    On December 29, 2014, defendant filed a petition for resentencing in the current
    case under Penal Code section 1170.18, arguing that his prior convictions under Health
    and Safety Code section 11350 should be reduced to misdemeanors. Defendant’s petition
    bore the case number of his current offense. The petition stated that on April 17, 2013,
    he had been convicted of felony offenses under Health and Safety Code section 11350,
    subdivision (a), and those offenses had been classified as misdemeanors. The People
    2
    opposed the petition on the ground that a violation of Penal Code section 273.5 was not a
    qualifying felony. The trial court denied the petition on that basis.
    Defendant submitted a letter regarding his petition in which defendant stated,
    “I petition the 4 [sic] prior possession charges. Prop #47.” The trial court held an ex
    parte hearing at which the court considered defendant’s letter and again denied the
    request for resentencing on the ground that his violation of Penal Code section 273.5,
    subdivision (a), was not a qualifying felony.
    DISCUSSION
    Defendant contends that his prior convictions for violation of Health and Safety
    Code section 11350 were eligible for resentencing, and this court should construe his
    petition as requesting such relief.
    Standard of Review
    When interpreting a voter initiative, “we apply the same principles that govern
    statutory construction.” (People v. Rizo (2000) 
    22 Cal.4th 681
    , 685.) We first look “‘to
    the language of the statute, giving the words their ordinary meaning.’” (Ibid.) We
    construe the statutory language “in the context of the statute as a whole and the overall
    statutory scheme.” (Ibid.) If the language is ambiguous, we look to “‘other indicia of the
    voters’ intent, particularly the analyses and arguments contained in the official ballot
    pamphlet.’” (Ibid.)
    Overview of Proposition 47 and Section 1170.18
    On November 4, 2014, voters approved Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods
    and Schools Act, which went into effect the next day. (People v. Rivera (2015) 233
    
    3 Cal.App.4th 1085
    , 1089.) Proposition 47 reduced certain drug- and theft-related crimes
    from felonies or wobblers to misdemeanors for qualified defendants and added, among
    other statutory provisions, section 1170.18. Section 1170.18 creates a process through
    which persons previously convicted of crimes as felonies, which would be misdemeanors
    under the new definitions in Proposition 47, may petition for resentencing. (See
    generally People v. Lynall (2015) 
    233 Cal.App.4th 1102
    , 1108-1109.) Specifically,
    section 1170.18, subdivision (a), provides: “A person currently serving a sentence for a
    conviction, whether by trial or plea, of a felony or felonies who would have been guilty
    of a misdemeanor under [Proposition 47] that added this section . . . had [Proposition 47]
    been in effect at the time of the offense may petition for a recall of sentence before the
    trial court that entered the judgment of conviction in his or her case to request
    resentencing in accordance with Sections 11350, 11357, or 11377 of the Health and
    Safety Code, or Section 459.5, 473, 476a, 490.2, 496, or 666 of the Penal Code, as those
    sections have been amended or added by [Proposition 47].”
    Section 1170.18, subdivision (f), provides, “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 [Proposition 47] had [Proposition 47] 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.” Section 1170.18, subdivision (g), provides, “If the
    application satisfies the criteria in subdivision (f), the court shall designate the felony
    offense or offenses as a misdemeanor.”
    4
    Defendant’s Petition
    Although, as noted, defendant’s petition for resentencing bore the current case
    number, he argues on appeal that this court should construe the petition as relating to his
    prior convictions under Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a).
    However, defendant’s petition bore only the current case number; it did not identify the
    case numbers for his prior convictions.
    The relief defendant seeks is not resentencing for his former convictions, but
    reclassification of those convictions as misdemeanors. Section 1170.18 provides no
    procedure for reclassifying prior offenses through a petition for resentencing on a current
    conviction. Rather, as to the prior offenses, defendant was required to file a petition
    under section 1170.18, subdivision (f), in the court in which he suffered those
    convictions. (Ibid.)
    The complaint in the current case shows that defendant was convicted of his
    Health and Safety Code section 11350 offenses in the County of Los Angeles in 1988,
    1997, and 1998. Thus, to have those offenses redesignated as misdemeanors, defendant
    was required to file his petition “before the trial court that entered the judgment of
    conviction,” the Superior Court for Los Angeles County. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18,
    subd. (a).)
    5
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.
    CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
    McKINSTER
    J.
    We concur:
    RAMIREZ
    P. J.
    HOLLENHORST
    J.
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: E063516

Citation Numbers: 243 Cal. App. 4th 331, 196 Cal. Rptr. 3d 415, 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 1151

Judges: McKinster, Ramirez, Hollenhorst

Filed Date: 12/23/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/3/2024