P. v. Mora

1
Filed 3/10/16 P. v. Mora 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
EDUARDO NAVA MORA,
Defendant and Appellant.
E063905
(Super.Ct.No. INF1100811)
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky L. Dugan, Judge.
Affirmed.
Melanie K. Dorian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Defendant Eduardo Mora appeals from the superior court’s ruling denying his
petition to reduce his 2011 grand theft auto (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (d)(1)) conviction to
a misdemeanor under Proposition 47.1 We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
On April 6, 2011, defendant stole a 1999 Nissan Altima.
On April 29, 2011, the People filed a complaint charging defendant with grand
theft auto (§ 487, subd. (d)(1)); unlawfully taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851,
subd. (a)); and receiving a stolen vehicle (§ 496d, subd. (a)).
On May 10, 2011, defendant pled guilty to grand theft auto, the other counts were
dismissed, and defendant was placed on probation.
On February 8, 2012, defendant admitted to violating his probation and the trial
court imposed a 16-month prison term.
On November 4, 2014, voters enacted Proposition 47, and it went into effect the
next day. (Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (a).) “Proposition 47 makes certain drug- and
theft-related offenses misdemeanors, unless the offenses were committed by certain
ineligible defendants. These offenses had previously been designated as either felonies
or wobblers (crimes that can be punished as either felonies or misdemeanors).” (People
v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1091.) “Proposition 47 also created a new
resentencing provision: section 1170.18. Under section 1170.18, a person ‘currently
serving’ a felony sentence for an offense that is now a misdemeanor under Proposition
1 All section references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
47, may petition for a recall of that sentence and request resentencing in accordance with
the statutes that were added or amended by Proposition 47.” (Id. at p. 1092; see
§ 1170.18, subd. (a).)
On February 25, 2015, defendant petitioned for resentencing under Proposition 47,
contending the value of the 1999 Nissan Altima did not exceed $950. The People filed a
response arguing grand theft auto is “Not a qualifying felony.” On May 8, 2015, the
superior court denied the petition on the ground that section “487(d)(1) is not a qualifying
felony.”
This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to
represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of
the case, a summary of the facts, and a potential arguable issue, and requesting this court
to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he
has not done so. In appellate counsel’s brief before this court, counsel argues as a
potential issue whether the trial court erred in denying defendant’s petition for
resentencing under Proposition 47. However, aside from whether a conviction of section
487, subdivision (d)(1), would otherwise qualify for reduction to a misdemeanor,
defendant has not established that the value of the vehicle he was convicted of stealing
did not exceed $950. A defendant seeking resentencing under section 1170.18 bears the

-- 3 of 4 --

4
burden of demonstrating that his underlying offense fell within that statutory scheme.
(People v. Sherow (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 875, 879.)
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no error.
DISPOSITION
We affirm the order denying defendant’s petition for resentencing on his
conviction for grand theft auto without prejudice to consideration of a subsequent petition
that supplies evidence of his eligibility.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
J.
CODRINGTON
J.

-- 4 of 4 --