P. v. Mejia

Filed 3/15/16 P. v. Mejia CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
RAUL MEJIA,
Defendant and Appellant.
G051527
(Super. Ct. No. 96CF2994)
O P I N I O N
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Thomas A.
Glazier, Judge. Affirmed.
Jared G. Coleman, 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,
Michael Pulos and Samantha Begovich, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
* * *

-- 1 of 6 --

2
Raul Mejia appeals from an order denying his application to have his felony
conviction for grand theft of cargo (Pen. Code, § 487h; all further statutory references are
to this code) designated as a misdemeanor under section 1170.18, subd. (g). He argues
the trial court erred by concluding his conviction for violation of section 487h was
categorically ineligible for redesignation as a misdemeanor under section 1170.18, and
denying his application on that basis. He also argues it is the prosecutor’s burden to
prove the value of the property he stole exceeded $950, and thus the dearth of any
evidence in the record on that point means he is entitled to have his crime redesignated a
misdemeanor as a matter of law.
We affirm. Mejia’s first argument is based solely on the trial court’s vague
comment that his application was denied as to this particular conviction because it
“doesn’t fit statutorily.” But as his right to have his felony conviction redesignated a
misdemeanor is entirely created and governed by statute, the comment does not convey
any specific reasoning. We presume the court understood the statutory scheme, including
that all theft crimes involving the theft of money, labor or property valued at $950 or less
– including those governed by section 487h – were eligible to be redesignated as
misdemeanors. Instead, the fatal flaw in Mejia’s application was his failure to offer the
court any evidence – or even any assertion – that his conviction for grand theft of cargo
actually involved goods worth $950 or less, and was thus eligible for redesignation.
Contrary to Mejia’s assertion, it was his burden as the party requesting relief to
demonstrate – at least initially – that his felony conviction was appropriate for
redesignation as a misdemeanor. Because he failed to carry that burden, the court did not
err by denying his application.

-- 2 of 6 --

3
FACTS
In 1996, Mejia (under the name Nicanor Rodriguez) was charged with four
counts of first degree burglary and one count of grand theft of cargo. He was found
guilty of all charges in 1997 and was sentenced to eight years in state prison. He
completed his sentence.
In 2014, California voters enacted Proposition 47, which “created a new
resentencing provision: section 1170.18.” (People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th
1085, 1092.) “Under section 1170.18, a person ‘currently serving’ a felony sentence for
an offence that is now a misdemeanor under Proposition 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.” (Ibid.) And a person who has already completed such a
felony sentence may “file an application . . . to have the felony conviction or convictions
designated as misdemeanors.” (§ 1170.18, subd. (f).)
Proposition 47 also added section 490.2, which specifies that
“[n]otwithstanding Section 487 or any other provision of law defining grand theft,
obtaining any property by theft where the value of the money, labor, real or personal
property taken does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars ($950) shall be considered petty
theft and shall be punished as a misdemeanor [unless the person has a disqualifying prior
conviction].” (§ 490, subd. (a).)
In December 2014, Mejia filed an application to have his conviction on the
count of grand theft of cargo redesignated a misdemeanor. His single page application
does not describe the circumstances of the offence or make any assertion as to the value
of the property stolen; nor does it reference or incorporate any evidence pertaining to
those issues. The district attorney opposed the application “due to the nature of the
charge and the fact that the value exceeds $950.” The trial court denied the application,
stating only that “it doesn’t fit statutorily.”

-- 3 of 6 --

4
DISCUSSION
Mejia’s first argument is that the trial court erred by concluding that a
felony conviction for violation of section 487h – grand theft of cargo – is not eligible for
redesignation as a misdemeanor under section 1170.18. He points out that since section
490.2, which was also enacted as part of Proposition 47, states that “any . . . provision of
law defining grand theft” shall be classified as a misdemeanor if the value of the property
taken does not exceed $950, his crime falls within that description as a matter of law.
But the argument is a red herring, based solely on the court’s statement, in
denying his application, that “it doesn’t fit statutorily.” That statement is too vague to be
ascribed any particular meaning because the remedy Mejia sought to avail himself of is
purely statutory, and thus any perceived deficiency in his application could fairly be
described as causing it to not fit the statute. In effect, the court merely conveyed that the
application was denied because Mejia was not entitled to relief.
In any event, “[w]e do not review the reasons for the trial court’s ruling; if
it is correct on any theory, even one not mentioned by the court, and even if the court
made its ruling for the wrong reason, it will be affirmed.” (Coastside Fishing Club v.
California Resources Agency (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1183, 1191; In re Marriage of
Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, 32.) Here, Mejia’s application was properly denied
because he made no showing that his conviction for violation of section 487h involved
the theft of property that did not exceed $950 in value, and thus that it was eligible to be
redesignated a misdemeanor in accordance with section 490.2.
Mejia acknowledges this omission, and forthrightly admits “[t]he record
contained no facts regarding the underlying crime.” He then argues it is the prosecutor’s
burden, not his, to establish the value of the goods he stole for purposes of
reclassification under section 1170.18, and that consequently the absence of evidence on
this issue establishes he is eligible for relief. We reject that argument.

-- 4 of 6 --

5
Mejia’s contention is grounded on the general notion that “[d]ue process
requires the prosecution to prove every fact necessary to constitute the crime.” But the
prosecutor has long since done that in this case. Mejia was convicted of the crime –
properly characterized as a felony – in 1997. There is no dispute about that. In 2014,
Proposition 47 gave the person convicted of a felony the opportunity to apply for a
redesignation of that crime. Thus, it is Mejia, not the district attorney, who is seeking
relief in this matter. And as explained in People v. Sherow (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 875
(Sherow), “[a]s an ordinary proposition: ‘“A party has the burden of proof as to each fact
the existence or nonexistence of which is essential to the claim for relief or defense he is
asserting.”’” (Id. at p. 879.)
Indeed, Sherow squarely rejected the very argument asserted by Mejia in
this case: “[Petitioner] contends it would violate due process to place the initial burden
of proof on him to show eligibility for resentencing. His arguments, however, are
directed to principles regarding proof of guilt of an alleged crime. The cases he cites,
dealing with such matters as the burden of proof to prove the crime of grand theft,
address the question of whether in the initial prosecution for certain alleged crimes, the
People must prove the amount of the theft meets the criteria for the offense. . . . [¶] The
difficulty with a due process argument based on the prosecutor’s burden of proof in the
initial prosecution for an offense is that the resentencing provisions of Proposition 47
deal with persons who have already been proved guilty of their offenses beyond a
reasonable doubt. Under this remedial statute, a petitioner is claiming the crime for
which the person has been convicted would be a misdemeanor if tried after the enactment
of the proposition.” (Sherow, supra, 239 Cal.App.4th at pp. 879-880.) We agree with
that analysis.
As it is Mejia – the person convicted of the felony – who is seeking relief
from the court in this matter, it is his burden to offer the court some evidence that he is
entitled to such relief; i.e., that the felony of which he was previously convicted is

-- 5 of 6 --

6
eligible to be redesignated a misdemeanor. As Mejia made no effort to do that in this
case, the court did not err by denying his application.
DISPOSITION
The order denying Mejia’s petition for resentencing is affirmed without
prejudice to subsequent consideration of a properly supported petition.
RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.
WE CONCUR:
FYBEL, J.
THOMPSON, J.

-- 6 of 6 --