A conviction for buying or receiving a stolen vehicle in violation of Penal Code section 496d qualifies for resentencing under Proposition 47. In 2011, Williams was convicted of receiving a stolen vehicle, a felony, in violation of section 496d, subdivision (a). After the passage of Proposition 47 in 2014, he filed a petition for resentencing. The court denied the petition, ruling that Proposition 47 did not apply to section 496d. No evidence was taken on the value of the vehicle. Williams appealed. Held: Affirmed without prejudice to filing a new petition demonstrating Williams’ eligibility for resentencing. Proposition 47 reduced a number of nonviolent drug and theft-related felonies to misdemeanors and allows qualified offenders previously convicted of such crimes to petition for reduction of the offenses to misdemeanors. (See Pen. Code, § 1170.18.) It also added section 490.2, which provides, in part, that “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 . . . .” The Supreme Court has held that theft crimes involving property of a value of $950 or less come within the ambit of Proposition 47, even if they are not expressly listed in section 1170.18. (See People v. Page (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1175; People v. Romanowski (2017) 2 Cal.5th 903, 910.) After analyzing Proposition 47 and the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Page and Romanowski, the Court of Appeal concluded that section 496d is a theft statute and falls within Proposition 47. In this case, however, Williams failed to meet his burden of showing that the vehicle was valued at $950 or less. He may file another petition in the trial court presenting facts to establish his eligibility.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A143877.PDF