People v. Whitfield CA4/2

facts, a statement of the case, and identifying one potentially arguable issue: whether the

court erred in finding defendant had failed to prove the value of the stolen vehicle was

$950 or less. We affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 27, 2006, the People charged defendant with theft of a vehicle having

suffered a prior vehicle theft conviction (Pen. Code, § 666.5, subd. (a), Veh. Code,

§ 10851, count 1) and receipt of a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a), count 2).

On April 3, 2006, pursuant to a negotiated plea, defendant pled guilty to count 1. In

return, the court dismissed the remaining count and sentenced defendant to the low term

of two years in prison.

On December 31, 2020, defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to

section 1170.18. The People filed a response, maintaining defendant was ineligible for

the relief requested because he had failed to meet his burden. The court set the matter for

a hearing.

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

2 At the hearing on May 20, 2021, defense counsel stated: “[T]his is a theft of a

motorcycle. I believe it was a 250 Ninja Kawasaki.…