People v. Peacock: Another Proposition 47 Opinion Holding 496d Conviction Ineligible for PC 1170.18 Relief

This is another Fourth District opinion holding that a conviction for receiving a stolen automobile, PC 496d, is not eligible for reduction to a misdemeanor under the ballot initiative Proposition 47 passed in November of 2014.  This panel's reasoning follows that in People v. Garness.

For some reason, the District courts make these case more difficult than they need be.  Penal Code section 1170.18 is the statute at issue.  It reads, in pertinent part;

 A person currently serving a sentence for a conviction . . . who would have been guilty of a misdemeanor . . . had this act been in effect at the time of the offense may petition for a recall of sentence . . [to] request resentencing in accordance with Sections 11350, 4 11357, or 11377 of the Health and Safety Code, or Section 459.5, 473, 476a, 490.2, 496, or 666 of the Penal Code . . . .

This language can be divided in two.  Part one states the requirement for a valid petition, which is that had you committed the crime of conviction today it would be a straight misdemeanor.  The second part states that if your answer to the first part is "yes", you may request resentencing under one of the applicable code sections enumerated.  

The panel makes it unnecessarily complicated by treating the second portion, the enumerated code sections under which a eligible petitioner may be resentenced, as the test for eligibility.  This creates unnecessary labor and confusion.  The true issue is clear.  If Mr. Peacock received stolen ATVs today, would his 496d crime be a straight misdemeanor?  Nope.  And all that is required is to read the current version of section 496d which clearly says the crime is a wobbler.  Easy.