Orozco

People v. Orozco

Good Law
197 Cal. Rptr. 3d 540·2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 41·244 Cal. App. 4th 65
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 21, 2016D067313California2,967 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Huffman, J.

In this case, we are asked to interpret Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act of 2014. Specifically, we are asked to determine if Proposition 47 applies to crimes that are not specifically enumerated in the law itself. Under the specific circumstances before us, we conclude that it does not.

Ernest Orozco pled guilty to one count of unlawfully driving a vehicle of another without permission ( *542 Veh.Code, § 10851, subd. (a) ), and one count of receiving a stolen vehicle ( Pen.Code, 1 § 496d ). He contends the trial court erred in denying his petition to reduce both of his felony convictions to misdemeanors under Proposition 47. We conclude Proposition 47 does not apply to Orozco's two felonies here.

Proposition 47's resentencing provision does not list Vehicle Code section 10851 or section 496d as statutes under which a defendant can be resentenced. In addition, there are no facts in the record here that persuade us that either of these felonies falls under any of the statutes that are enumerated in Proposition 47. We therefore affirm the order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 7, 2014, the police pulled Orozco over and a routine license plate…

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.