California v. Perkins
Annotate this CaseDefendant-appellant Clayton Perkins was charged with one felony count of receiving stolen property, three felony counts of grand theft of a firearm, two felony counts of possession of methamphetamine for sale, two felony counts of burglary, three misdemeanor counts of resisting a peace officer, and one misdemeanor count of using a controlled substance. After a jury found defendant guilty on all counts, he admitted to a prison prior, a serious felony prior, and a serious or violent prior, and the trial court imposed an aggregate term of 20 years 8 months in state prison. The trial court sentenced defendant to eight months in state prison on the receiving stolen property count, running consecutively to the sentences imposed on the burglary and possession of methamphetamine for sale counts. The trial court sentenced defendant to two years for each grand theft of a firearm count and stayed those sentences under section 654 because they arose out of the same events as the principal first degree burglary offense. Defendant appealed his conviction, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. California voters later passed Proposition 47, which converted receipt of stolen property and grand theft of a firearm into misdemeanors where the value of the stolen property does not exceed $950. Defendant filed a form to request resentencing, but the form mistakenly excluded the option of petitioning for resentencing grand theft offenses. As a result, and contrary to his intention, Perkins’s petition asked for resentencing on the receiving stolen property conviction alone. Defendant’s petition stated the requirements for eligibility for resentencing on that conviction, but attached no evidence, included no declaration, and provided no record citations to support the factual assertion that the stolen property did not exceed $950 in value. The superior court denied the petition without holding a hearing on the ground that the value of the stolen property exceeded $950. The order did not mention the convictions for grand theft of firearms. On appeal, defendant argued: (1) the superior court erred in denying his petition for resentencing on the receipt of stolen property conviction because its finding that the value of the stolen property exceeded $950 was not supported by substantial evidence; and (2) the superior court erred in failing to consider the petition for resentencing on defendant’s three convictions for grand theft of a firearm. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order denying the petition for resentencing on the receiving stolen property conviction because defendant did not carry his burden to submit evidence of the value of the stolen property. The Court did not reach the putative petition for resentencing on the grand theft of firearms convictions because defendant did not properly request resentencing on those convictions. The Court concluded, however, that defendant could file new petitions on his convictions for both the receipt of stolen property offense and the theft of firearms offenses.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.