State Supreme Court reverses another appellate court on Prop 47

The state Supreme Court on Monday reversed another appellate ruling regarding Proposition 47, broadening the already expansive law by applying it to another vehicle theft-related offense.

The 7-0 opinion, written by Justice Leondra R. Kruger, extends the court's 2017 holding regarding Prop 47 and state Vehicle Code Section 10851 to apply to low-value vehicles taken only temporarily.

In that case, People v. Page, 3 Cal. 5th 1175 (Cal. 2017), justices concluded the 2014 voter initiative's provision that reduces felony thefts to misdemeanors applies to 10851, but they didn't say whether it applies specifically to the charge of taking a vehicle with intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession. Monday's opinion concludes that it does, adding to the stack of case law defining one of the state's largest criminal justice overhauls. People v. Bullard, S239488 (Cal. 2020).

It follows another reversal March 2 of an appellate and trial court holding that restricted the initiative from applying to felony identity theft. But Monday's reversal was done with the benefit of hindsight: When the 4th District Court of Appeal affirmed a San Bernardino County Superior Court judge in 2016, the high court had not issued the Page opinion clarifying Prop 47's application to 10851. So while the appellate panel in this case said 10851 convictions aren't eligible for Prop 47 resentencing, Page later contradicted that finding, creating new case law that factored into Monday's opinion.

"It certainly would have made our task easier had voters expressly instructed that all vehicle takings under section 10851 are to be treated as equivalent to vehicle theft for purposes of Proposition 47's theft-reduction provision," according to the opinion. "But Proposition 47 does not speak in this degree of granular detail, so we must discern the voters' intent given the other tools at hand."

Splitting 10851 to making permanent theft a misdemeanor and temporary theft a felony is "so patently illogical that we cannot imagine any plausible reason why voters might have intended that result," Kruger wrote.

The ruling eliminates the legal difference between the two charges, said Richard L. Fitzer, a Long Beach sole practitioner who represents the petitioner.

"The major point is now you don't have to have special jury instructions on permanent versus temporary theft," Fitzer said. "We don't have to decide whether a person took a car with the intent to permanently deprive or not."

Fitzer argued the case Jan. 7 in San Francisco against Deputy Solicitor General Samuel P. Siegel. Siegel referred an interview request on Monday to the attorney general's press office on Monday, which stated: "We are unable to provide legal advice or analysis. We'll let the court's decision speak for itself."

The case centers on a 2003 Lincoln Town Car, valued at $500 when Julian Micah Bullard took it from his girlfriend's Apple Valley home in 2012. Bullard returned the car to his girlfriend's work that night then later pleaded guilty to felony unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle.

San Bernardino County Judge John P. Vander Feer in 2016 rejected his petition to reduce his conviction to a misdemeanor under Prop 47 and an appellate panel affirmed Vander Feer 2-1, with Justice Carol D. Codrington concurring with an opinion written by Justice Manuel A. Ramirez. Justice Douglas P. Miller's dissent took the position that the high court later did in Page: Prop 47 applies to 10851 theft convictions. But he still concurred with Ramirez and Cordrington that the initiative doesn't apply to Bullard's case because Bullard didn't establish the stolen car was valued under $950, and he intended to permanently take it.

That's where Monday's high court decision establishes clarifying case law, by killing the issue of temporary versus permanent taking. The question justices reserved in Page concerned whether "equal protection or the avoidance of absurd consequences" means Prop 47 must apply to temporary vehicle thefts because Page establishes it applies to permanent ones.

Monday's opinion is the third vehicle-related Prop 47 state Supreme Court opinion to stem from a case before the 4th District Court of Appeal, Division 2, in Riverside.

In addition to Page in 2017, the court in 2019 established the taking or driving offense as a so-called wobbler that can be a misdemeanor or a felony. That case, People v. Lara, 6 Cal. 5th 1128 (Cal. 2019), held that post-theft driving isn't eligible for Prop 47 reductions. Combined, the cases establish vehicle theft versus post-theft driving as "really the new dividing line" in 10851 offenses, said Fitzer.