No. B271592.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NATALIE A. VARGAS, Defendant and Appellant.

Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Five.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

David R. Greifinger , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris and Xavier Becerra , Attorneys General, Gerald A. Engler , Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters , Senior Assistant Attorney General, Mary Sanchez and Tannaz Kouhpainezhad , Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.


On September 18, 2014, defendant, Natalie A. Vargas, pled no contest to receiving stolen property, a California driver's license. (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a).)1 She was placed on three years' formal probation. Defendant appeals from an April 8, 2016 order denying, without prejudice, her oral section 1170.18 resentencing petition. Defendant argued the driver's license was worth less than $950. (§ 496, subd. (a) as amended by Prop. 47, Gen. Elec. Nov. 4, 2014, § 9.) Defense counsel represented the cost to replace a California driver's license is $33, but she did not present any evidence to that effect. Nor was any other evidence of value presented. It was defendant's burden to present evidence the "reasonable and fair market value" (§ 496, subd. (a)) of the stolen property did not exceed $950. (People v. Romanowski (March 27, 2017, S231405) ___ Cal.5th ___, ___; People v. Johnson (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 953, 962; People v. Hall (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1263.) Because defendant did not meet that burden, the trial court did not err in denying the petition without prejudice.

The order denying defendant's resentencing petition without prejudice is affirmed.

BAKER, J. and KIN, J.*, concurs.


1. Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.


1000 Characters Remaining reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases