People v. Medina CA4/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 25, 2016E064325California2,602 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In October 2014, defendant pled no contest to buying or receiving a stolen motor

vehicle (§ 496d). Defendant also admitted a gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)) and

a prior conviction for receiving a stolen vehicle (§ 666.5, subd. (a)). During the plea

hearing, counsel stipulated that the police reports in the court file provided a factual basis

for the plea. The trial court sentenced defendant to three years in prison.

In July 2015, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Proposition 47. The

trial court held a hearing on the petition and denied the petition on the ground defendant

Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 was “statutorily ineligible due to the nature [of] the charges. . . . And again it is this

Court’s view that the charge of 496(d), receiving stolen property, a stolen vehicle, the

defendant is statutorily ineligible due to that charge regardless of the value of the

vehicle.”

II

PROPOSITION

On November 4, 2014, voters enacted Proposition 47, which went into effect the

next day. (Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (a).) “Proposition 47 makes certain drug-…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.