Opinion
A152505
04-17-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DARNELL CHRISTOPHER FIELDS, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Solano County Super. Ct. No. VCR164568)
INTRODUCTION
The trial court denied appellant's petition pursuant to Proposition 47 to have his felony conviction redesignated as a misdemeanor. He contended the value of the property in his receiving stolen property conviction was under $950. The trial court rejected his claim and this appeal followed. We affirm the trial court ruling.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
An information was filed on March 10, 2003, charging appellant with the felony offense of receiving stolen property, a violation of Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a). On May 9, 2003, appellant entered a no contest plea to this offense.
Unless otherwise stated, all statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
On July 11, 2003, the court imposed a suspended sentence and placed appellant on probation. His probation was revoked and a bench warrant issued after he engaged in several violations of probation. He has been in bench warrant status for over 11 years. According to the probation report submitted in his section 1170.18 petition, appellant had been living primarily in Idaho and Oregon until his arrest on the warrant on July 11, 2017. On August 24, 2017, appellant filed a petition pursuant to Proposition 47 seeking to have his felony reduced to a misdemeanor. On September 6, 2017, the court denied his petition and sentenced him to a jail term of 16 months, with credits of 364 days. He was placed on probation supervision for the remainder of the jail term.
Appellant filed a timely appeal.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In February 2002, Kathy Demartile reported to the police her jewelry valued at approximately $3,000 was improperly taken from her home. In the course of their investigation, the police took Demartile to a store in Benicia operated by Ken Tang. At the establishment, Demartile recognized property that was stolen from her home. Among the jewelry items belonging to Demartile and recovered at Tang's jewelry store were a topaz ring, a Black Hills gold ring, a peridot stone ring belonging to the victim's mother, and a ruby ring. Tang eventually indicated he paid appellant $20 for the recovered property.
The preliminary hearing involving appellant's charge of receiving stolen property was submitted to the trial court in the Proposition 47 hearing. The preliminary hearing was held on February 24, 2003, and the victim, Demartile, testified and was cross-examined. Demartile described the topaz ring as belonging to her great-grandmother and being "very unique." It was a "very large stone," and she had it on at the hearing. Another ring was the victim's mother's peridot ring, which was "old and unique." One ring was a "Black Hills gold ring" with a diamond, which Demartile valued at $300. The final ring she described as a witness was a ring with a ruby stone. She indicated all the items had sentimental value to her.
ANALYSIS
In this matter, appellant claims the trial court improperly denied his petition under Proposition 47 because the value of the stolen property was less than $950. A review of the record in this case supports the conclusion the trial court did not improperly rule on the motion in this matter.
On September 6, 2017, the court heard the motion under Proposition 47. The lone issue was the value of the property. Appellant contended the value of the property under a "fair market value" analysis would be $20 because that is the price a willing buyer (Tang) was prepared to pay appellant for the jewelry.
The trial court rejected this position. The court determined appellant failed to satisfy his burden to prove the property was valued below $950. In a petition under section 1170.18, it is appellant's burden to prove the value of the property is below $950. People v. Romanowski (2017) 2 Cal.5th 903, 916 (Romanowski). The court pointed to the preliminary hearing testimony of Demartile that she believed the goods were worth approximately $3,000. A review of that transcript suggests the items clearly had a value beyond the $20 appellant received from the retail store operator. The rings were composed of gold and had precious stones, be they diamond, ruby, peridot, or topaz. To the victim, at least two of the rings were unique and were handed down by a parent or grandparent. The court decided appellant failed to rebut the owner's estimate of her property's worth.
Under Proposition 47, certain theft-related crimes became misdemeanors unless the offenses were committed by particular ineligible persons. Prior to the passage of Proposition 47, the crimes were either felonies or wobblers. (People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1091.) Receiving stolen property was a crime included within the potential consequences of Proposition 47 if the value of the stolen property was below $950. (§ 496, subd. (a).)
The proposition also permits a person currently serving a felony sentence for an offense affected by the proposition's changes to petition for a recall of the sentence and seek a resentencing. (§ 1170.18, subd. (a).) We review the trial court's legal conclusions de novo and its findings of fact for substantial evidence. (People v. Trinh (2014) 59 Cal.4th 216, 236.)
As Romanowski suggests, the test for value is the " 'reasonable and fair market value' " of the property. (Romanowski, supra, at pp. 915-916.) This legal standard of valuation has been a part of the criminal law for a substantial period. It did not originate with section 1170.18. Unlike the access card device in Romanowski, we are dealing here with items of jewelry that can be assessed a reasonable value by the court in this instance. Fair market value is the "price a reasonable buyer and seller would agree on if the buyer wanted to buy the property and the seller wanted to sell it, but neither was under an urgent need to buy or sell." (CALCRIM No. 1801, italics added.) " 'Put another way, "fair market value" means the highest price obtainable in the market place.' " (Romanowski, at p. 915, citing People v. Pena (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 100, 104.)
After reviewing this matter, we conclude the appeal by appellant must be rejected. He fails to satisfy his burden establishing eligibility. (People v. Johnson (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 953, 964-965.) It is important to realize appellant was properly convicted under the existing law that was in place at the time of the original felony proceedings. The need to determine "value of stolen property" was not necessary in 2003, when appellant entered his felony plea; within a short period after his sentence, appellant had a bench warrant issued.
The trial court here determined appellant did not satisfy his burden. The quick sale of stolen goods by appellant for instant cash of $20 did not offset the honest valuation of the victim to the trial court nor to us. We view the victim's estimated loss of at least $3,000 and her description of the particular rings appellant sold to the jewelry store operator to be enough to support the court's conclusion appellant did not establish a total value of the five rings below $950. The court's finding on value is supported by substantial evidence.
Regarding the question of substantial evidence to support the trial court's ruling, we view the victim's testimony as reasonable, credible, and of solid value. (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 396.) The sentencing judge was obligated to determine proof of value and he decided the victim testimony was more realistic. It would appear that rings with the stones described above have a fair market value exceeding $950.
CONCLUSION
We conclude the trial court made its decision on value of the stolen property based on what was before it. The court reasonably accepted the value placed on the property by the owner and rejected appellant's "quick sale" claim of fair market value.
DISPOSITION
We affirm the denial of appellant's Proposition 47 motion.
/s/_________
Dondero, J. We concur: /s/_________
Margulies, Acting P. J. /s/_________
Banke, J.