P. v. Trenholm

1
Filed 4/4/17 P. v. Trenholm CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DANIEL SCOTT TRENHOLM,
Defendant and Appellant.
E065509
(Super.Ct.No. FVI022669)
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Colin J. Bilash,
Judge. Affirmed.
Richard Power, 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, A. Natasha Cortina and Alastair J.
Agcaoili, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On November 4, 2014, the voters approved Proposition 47, The Safe
Neighborhoods and Schools Act (Proposition 47). Proposition 47 reduced certain

-- 1 of 12 --

2
nonserious, nonviolent felonies to misdemeanors. Proposition 47 allows a person
convicted of a felony prior to its passage, who would have been guilty of a misdemeanor
under Proposition 47, to petition the court to reduce his or her felony to a misdemeanor
and be resentenced.
In 2005, prior to the passage of Proposition 47, defendant and appellant Daniel
Scott Trenholm entered a guilty plea to a felony violation of receiving stolen property,
specifically a motor vehicle, within the meaning of Penal Code section 496d, subdivision
(a).1 Defendant filed a petition to recall his sentence (Petition) stating that his felony
conviction should be reduced to a misdemeanor. The trial court denied the petition on the
ground defendant’s conviction was not eligible for resentencing under Proposition 47.
Defendant now claims on appeal that the trial court erred by finding that a
violation of section 496d does not qualify for resentencing under Proposition 47 because
(1) Proposition 47 redefines all theft-related offenses with the value of the property under
$950 as misdemeanors; and (2) if this court finds section 496d was not affected by
Proposition 47, the omission from Proposition 47 violated his equal protection rights
because those convicted of receiving stolen property with a value less than $950 under
section 496, subdivision (a), are only guilty of a misdemeanor.
A conviction for receiving a stolen motor vehicle in violation of section 496d is
not an eligible offense under Proposition 47. Moreover, it does not offend principles of
equal protection to treat a defendant who receives a stolen vehicle, whether or not it is
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

-- 2 of 12 --

3
valued less than $950, differently than a person who receives stolen property of other
kinds. We affirm the denial of the Petition.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 12, 2005, a felony complaint was filed against defendant in San
Bernardino County case No. FUI022669, charging him in count 1 with receiving stolen
property, a motor vehicle, within the meaning of section 496d, subdivision (a).
Specifically, he was charged with unlawfully buying or receiving a 1986 Toyota Truck;
and in count 2 with receiving stolen property, to wit, a license plate, in violation of
section 496, subdivision (a). On October 25, 2005, an information charged defendant
with the same two counts.
On December 2, 2005, defendant signed a plea agreement agreeing to enter a
guilty plea to a violation of section 496d, subdivision (a), receiving stolen property, a
vehicle. The trial court accepted the plea. The parties agreed that the preliminary
hearing transcript would form the factual basis for the entry of the plea. The police report
has not been made part of the record on appeal. The trial court sentenced defendant to
the midterm of two years in prison. The court noted that “[t]his may be followed by a
period of parole three to four years.” The court also ordered a restitution fine of $200
under section 1202.4, and restitution fine under section 1202.45, stayed pending
successful completion of parole.
On January 14, 2016, defendant filed his Petition. It consisted of one page. The
sole information on his conviction that was provided to the trial court in the Petition was
as follows: “Defendant in the above-entitled case requests that, pursuant to Penal Code

-- 3 of 12 --

4
§ 1170.18, the following felony violation(s) PC496d be designated as misdemeanor(s).”
Defendant indicated he had completed his sentence. On January 14 the People responded
that defendant was not entitled to relief because “PC 496d is not affected by Prop. 47.”
On January 29 the trial court denied defendant’s Petition because the court found
defendant did “not satisfy the criteria in Penal Code 1170.18 and is not eligible for
resentencing.”
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his petition because the voters
intended to include section 496d under Proposition 47. Defendant also contends that if
this court concludes section 496d was not intended to be included in Proposition 47, his
equal protection rights have been violated.2
A. PROPOSITION 47
“The voters approved Proposition 47 at the November 4, 2014 general election,
and it became effective the next day.” (People v. Diaz (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1323,
1328.) “Proposition 47 ‘was intended to reduce penalties “for certain nonserious and
nonviolent property and drug offenses from wobblers or felonies to misdemeanors.”’”
(T.W. v. Superior Court (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 646, 652.)
Proposition 47 added Penal Code section 1170.18 to the Penal Code. Subdivision
(a) of Penal Code section 1170.18, provides in pertinent part, “A person currently serving
2 These issues are currently under review in the California Supreme Court in
People v. Romanowski (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 151, review granted January 20, 2016,
S231405; and People v. Garness (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1370, review granted January
27, 2016, S231031.

-- 4 of 12 --

5
a sentence for a conviction, whether by trial or plea, of a felony or felonies who would
have been guilty of a misdemeanor under the act that added this section (‘this act’) had
this act 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 this act.”
“The procedure for a person who has completed the sentence for a crime reduced
by Proposition 47 likewise contemplates filing in the superior court. Under section
1170.18, subdivision (f): ‘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 this act had this act 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.’
(Italics added.) No hearing on the application is required ‘[u]nless requested by the
applicant’ (§ 1170.18, subd. (h)), and ‘[i]f the application satisfies the criteria in
subdivision (f), the court shall designate the felony offense or offenses as a
misdemeanor.’ (§ 1170.18, subd. (g).)” (People v. Diaz, supra, 238 Cal.App.4th at p.
1329.)
Proposition 47 amended section 496, buying or receiving stolen property, to
provide that if the defendant receives “any property” that is $950 or less, the offense shall
be a misdemeanor except for some ineligible individuals. (§ 496, subd. (a).) The

-- 5 of 12 --

6
previous version of section 496 gave the prosecution discretion to charge the offense as a
misdemeanor if the value of the property did not exceed $950 and the district attorney or
grand jury determined that so charging would be in the interests of justice. (Former
§ 496 [eff. Oct. 1, 2011-Nov. 4, 2014].) Accordingly, Proposition 47 converted the
offense of receiving stolen property in section 496 from a wobbler to a misdemeanor.
Proposition 47 did not amend section 496d, the section under which defendant was
convicted. Section 496d provides “Every person who buys or receives any motor vehicle
. . . that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft or
extortion, knowing the property to be stolen or obtained, or who conceals, sells,
withholds, or aids in concealing” shall be convicted of either a misdemeanor or felony.
B. ELIGIBILITY
As stated, section 496d is not listed in Proposition 47. In order to be eligible for
resentencing, defendant had the burden of showing that he “would have been guilty of a
misdemeanor” if Proposition 47 had been in effect at the time of his offense. (See People
v. Sherow (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 875, 879-880 [defendant has the burden of
establishing his or her eligibility for resentencing under Proposition 47].) “When we
interpret an initiative, we apply the same principles governing statutory construction. We
first consider the initiative’s language, giving the words their ordinary meaning and
construing this language in the context of the statute and initiative as a whole. If the
language is not ambiguous, we presume the voters intended the meaning apparent from
that language, and we may not add to the statute or rewrite it to conform to some assumed
intent not apparent from that language. If the language is ambiguous, courts may

-- 6 of 12 --

7
consider ballot summaries and arguments in determining the voters’ intent and
understanding of a ballot measure.” (People v. Superior Court (Pearson) (2010) 48
Cal.4th 564, 571.)
Defendant stated in his Petition only that he had been convicted of “PC 496d(a).”
The trial court determined that defendant was not eligible for resentencing. The trial
court did not err because section 496d is not included in section 1170.18. Moreover,
there is no indication that the drafters of Proposition 47 intended to include section 496d.
Construing the plain language of section 1170.18 to include section 496d would be
inconsistent with our Supreme Court’s determination that we may not “add to the statute
or rewrite it to conform to some assumed intent not apparent from that language.”
(People v. Superior Court (Pearson), supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 571.)
Defendant’s reliance on the changes made by Proposition 47 to the crimes of
grand theft and petty theft do not support that the drafters of Proposition 47 intended to
include section 496d. Section 490.2, which was added by Proposition 47, provides a
definition of petty theft that affects the definition of grand theft in section 487 and other
provisions. Section 490.2 begins with the phrase: “Notwithstanding Section 487 or any
other provision of law defining grand theft . . . .” (§ 490.2) Similarly, section 459.5,
which was also added by Proposition 47, and which provides a definition of shoplifting
that affects the definition of burglary in section 459, begins with the phrase:
“Notwithstanding Section 459 . . . .” (§ 459.5.) The drafters of Proposition 47 knew how
to indicate when they intended to affect the punishment for an offense the proposition
was not directly amending. This “notwithstanding” language is conspicuously absent

-- 7 of 12 --

8
from section 496, subdivision (a). Because that provision contains no reference to
section 496d, we must assume the drafters intended section 496d to remain intact and
intended for the prosecution to retain its discretion to charge section 496d offenses as
felonies. The trial court did not err by concluding defendant was ineligible for
resentencing based on his conviction of section 496d.
Defendant further contends that it would be absurd for a defendant who is
convicted of receiving stolen property valued at less than $950, in violation of section
496, to be eligible for a reduction to a misdemeanor when essentially the same offense of
receiving a stolen vehicle worth less than $950 is not eligible for reduction. However, as
stated, before Proposition 47’s passage, section 496 provided that a prosecutor had the
discretion to charge a defendant who had received stolen property as a misdemeanor if
the property stolen was valued less than $950. (Former § 496 [eff. Oct. 1, 2011-Nov. 4,
2014].) The only change to section 496 relevant here is that now a defendant must be
charged with a misdemeanor if the value of the property is under $950. Section 496d has
remained the same since October 1, 2011. (Stats. 2011, c. 15 (A.B. 109), § 374.)
Proposition 47 did not alter the prosecution’s discretion to charge receiving a stolen
vehicle under the more general statute (§ 496) or the more specific statute (§ 496d).
Section 1170.18 applies only to those people who “would have” been guilty of a
misdemeanor prior to the passage of Proposition 47. Here, the prosecution would likely
have charged defendant with the same felony violation of section 496d because exactly
the same sentencing considerations applied to defendant’s offense before and after
Proposition 47.

-- 8 of 12 --

9
C. EQUAL PROTECTION
Defendant contends if his conviction of a felony for receiving a stolen vehicle
valued at less than $9503 does not qualify under Proposition 47, his equal protection
rights were violated because he is similarly situated to a person who is convicted of
receiving other stolen property under section 496, which is now a misdemeanor.
Specifically, he argues that the state cannot provide a justification for the disparity
between these two similarly situated groups, as there is no legitimate state interest or
rational basis for treating these two groups differently.
“‘The United States and California Constitutions entitle all persons to equal
protection of the laws. [Citations.] This guarantee means “that no person or class of
persons shall be denied the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by other persons
or other classes in like circumstances.” [Citation.] A litigant challenging a statute on
equal protection grounds bears the threshold burden of showing “that the state has
adopted a classification that affects two or more similarly situated groups in an unequal
manner.” [Citation.] Even if the challenger can show that the classification differently
affects similarly situated groups, “[i]n ordinary equal protection cases not involving
suspect classifications or the alleged infringement of a fundamental interest,” the
classification is upheld unless it bears no rational relationship to a legitimate state
purpose.’” (People v. Singh (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 364, 369.)
3 We will assume for sake of this argument that defendant met his burden of
establishing that the truck was valued at less than $950.

-- 9 of 12 --

10
“In resolving equal protection issues, the United States Supreme Court has used
three levels of analysis. Distinctions in statutes that involve suspect classifications or
touch upon fundamental interests are subject to strict scrutiny, and can be sustained only
if they are necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. Classifications based on
gender are subject to an intermediate level of review. But most legislation is tested only
to determine if the challenged classification bears a rational relationship to a legitimate
state purpose.” (People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185, 1200, overruled on other
grounds in Johnson v. Department of Justice (2015) 60 Cal.4th 871.)
The analysis here is subject to the rational relationship test. (See People v. Noyan
(2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 657, 667-668 [applying the rational basis test in assessing section
1170, subdivision (h), the Realignment Legislation].)
Defendant cannot show he is similarly situated to a person who steals property
other than a motor vehicle. An owner of a vehicle relies on his or her vehicle for
transportation to work, doctor’s appointments, and numerous other necessities of life.
Moreover, even if a vehicle that is stolen is only valued at less than $950, the replacement
cost can be much more.
There is a rational basis for alleged disparity between a conviction under section
496d for buying or receiving a motor vehicle with a value of $950 or less, which is not
eligible for reclassification and resentencing under section 1170.18; and the eligible
conviction under section 496 for receiving other stolen property. In order to address the
uniqueness of receiving stolen vehicles, the Legislature enacted section 496d. The bill’s
author proposed that section 496d be added “to the Penal Code to encompass only motor

-- 10 of 12 --

11
vehicle[s] related to the receiving of stolen property.” (Sen. Rules Com., Off. of Sen.
Floor Analyses, 3d reading analysis of Assem. Bill No. 2390 (1997-1998 Reg. Sess.) as
amended June 23, 1998.) Section 496d was described as “‘provid[ing] additional tools to
law enforcement for utilization in combating vehicle theft and prosecuting vehicle
thieves. Incarcerating vehicle thieves provides safer streets and saves Californians
millions of dollars. These proposals target persons involved in the business of vehicle
theft and would identify persons having prior felony convictions for the receiving of
stolen vehicles for enhanced sentences.’” (Sen. Rules Com., Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses,
3d reading analysis of Assem. Bill No. 2390 (1997-1998 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 23,
1998.)
Those punished under section 496d are not situated similarly to those punished
under section 496. Moreover, the drafters of Proposition 47 could legitimately determine
that those who engage in vehicle theft should be punished more severely than those
engaged in theft of other property. Section 496d addresses the unique problems
involving vehicle theft. There are legitimate and plausible reasons for treating vehicle
crimes different from other types of property crime.4
4 We express no opinion as to whether a defendant convicted of violating section
496d could show his equal protection rights have been violated based on the fact that the
same person who steals a vehicle valued at less than $950 would only be subject to a
misdemeanor conviction as it was not raised by defendant either in the trial court or on
appeal.

-- 11 of 12 --

12
Based on the foregoing, defendant has failed to show that the exclusion of section
496d from Proposition 47 violated his equal protection rights.5
DISPOSITION
The trial court’s order denying defendant’s petition to recall his sentence is
affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST
Acting. P. J.
McKINSTER
J.
5 Defendant also contended in his opening brief that remand for an evidentiary
hearing on the value of the stolen motor vehicle involved in his section 496d conviction
is required. However, we have concluded that defendant’s section 496d conviction is not
eligible for reclassification and resentencing under section 1170.18 in this case even if the
actual value of the stolen motor vehicle was $950 or less.

-- 12 of 12 --