Monday, November 9, 2015

People v. Garness: Proposition 47 Didn't Affect PC 496d

Mr. Garness pled to knowingly receiving a stolen car worth 450 dollars, a violation of Penal Code section 469d(a), and admitted a prior strike.  Post-Proposition 47, he petitions the court to reduce his felony 469d(a) conviction to a misdemeanor via Penal Code section 1170.18.  The trial court denies his petition and here a Fourth District panel affirms.

The legal issue is one of interplay between two theft statutes.  Penal Code 496(a) is the general receiving stolen property statute, applicable to "any" stolen property.  Prior to November 5, 2014, 496(a) was a "wobbler" meaning it could be charged as a felony or a misdemeanor at the discretion of the prosecutor, regardless of the value of the property.  Proposition 47, effective November 5, 2014, amended 496(a) to (save exceptions not applicable here) distinguish between property worth less than 950 dollars (misdemeanor) and property worth more than 950 (wobbler).  

Penal Code 496 is not the only statute dealing with stolen property.  There are additional sections dealing with specific property and/or specific defendants.  For instance, 496a makes it a wobbler (regardless of value) for a scrap metal dealer to knowingly possess, among other items, copper wire he knows was stolen from a utility company.  Section 496b makes it a misdemeanor (regardless of value) for a used book dealer to buy used books belonging to a public university without first verifying the authority of the seller.  At issue here is section 496d(a) which states it is a wobbler (regardless of value) to knowingly possess a stolen car. 

While Proposition 47 amended 496, the general statute, applicable to "any" stolen property, it did not amend the more specific sections, including 496d.  Therefore, the panel concludes that had Mr. Garness' conviction occurred under the current law, it would not have necessarily been a misdemeanor, the requirement for relief under 1170.18.  It is of no effect that Garness' conviction could have been under the general statute.  


No comments:

Post a Comment