Is receiving a stolen vehicle a crime under Section 496 of the California Vehicle Prosecutions Act?

Appellant's fallback position is that equal protection principles require his section 496d conviction to be treated like a violation of 496, the general receiving stolen property statute, which, as noted above, is expressly included within the terms of Proposition 47. Appellant is correct that receiving a stolen vehicle can be charged under either one of these provisions. However, that does not create a constitutional problem; it simply raises the issue of prosecutorial discretion. The law is well established that prosecutors have considerable leeway in terms of choosing which crime to charge when the defendant's conduct violates more than one statute. (People v. Wilkinson (2004) 33 Cal.4th 821, 838.) So, unless the defendant can show that by charging him with one offense rather than another the prosecutor signaled him out for differential treatment based on some invidious criterion, no equal protection violation will be found. (Id. at p. 839.) Appellant has failed to make such showing in this case. Accordingly, his equal protection claim cannot prevail.

Page 5

The trial court's order denying appellant's petition for Proposition 47 relief is affirmed.