P. v. Denman CA4/2
218 Cal. App. 4th 800
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Nine Riverside County properties were targets of quitclaim deeds and homestead declarations filed by Denman, who admitted no ownership or interest, creating clouded titles.
- He was convicted of 20 counts of recording false documents under §115 and nine counts of perjury for the nine properties.
- For each property, the jury found an enhancement for damage to title and an aggravated white-collar enhancement for losses over $500,000 across multiple counts.
- The losses were evidenced by clouded titles preventing sale and forcing quiet-title actions or title-insurance denial, affecting multiple properties.
- Denman represented himself and argued insufficiency of the §115 and §12022.6 and §186.11 enhancements, and sought additional conduct credits under former §2933/e1.
- The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for imposition of a mandatory fine under §186.11(c) and recalculation of conduct credits
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of §115 false-document convictions | Denman contends §115 convictions lack substantial evidence | Denman argues quitclaims were not false since transfers were to self | Substantial evidence supports §115 convictions |
| Sufficiency of §12022.6 losses evidence | People contend losses exceed statutory thresholds | Denman asserts no loss over thresholds | Evidence supports losses exceeding $65k for some counts and $200k for others; clouding title constitutes loss; jury instruction issues did not negate substantial evidence |
| Aggravated white-collar enhancement over $500,000 | Aggregate losses from multiple counts exceed $500k | No taking by Denman since no title; not over $500k | Sufficient evidence that aggregated losses surpassed $500,000 justifying §186.11(a)(2) enhancement |
| Award of conduct credits and retroactivity | Brown v. Brown and Tinker support certain credit awards | Credits should be calculated differently under pre/post- Brown/2933 | Remanded to recalculate conduct credits under applicable former §§4019 and 2933(e)(1); Brown applied prospectively; decision consistent with Tinker |
| Mandatory restitution fine under §186.11(c) | Failure to impose the mandatory fine was error | Fine not previously appealed but may be proper | Remanded for trial court to impose the mandatory restitution fine under §186.11(c) |
Key Cases Cited
- Generes v. Justice Court, 106 Cal.App.3d 678 (Cal. App. 1980) (section 115 protects integrity of public records; false or forged instrument language)
- People v. Cravens, 53 Cal.4th 500 (Cal. 2012) (guides sufficiency review for criminal convictions)
- People v. Feinberg, 51 Cal.App.4th 1566 (Cal. App. 1997) (broad interpretation of §115 false documents)
- People v. Beaver, 186 Cal.App.4th 107 (Cal. App. 2010) (application of §12022.6 to damage/loss impairment)
- In re Marriage of Broderick, 209 Cal.App.3d 489 (Cal. App. 1989) (quitclaim deed presumptions and conveyance form)
- People v. Ramirez, 109 Cal.App.3d 529 (Cal. App. 1980) (limits of loss measurement under §12022.6)
- Brown v. Brown, 54 Cal.4th 314 (Cal. 2012) (retroactivity of credit provisions; conduct credits)
- People v. Tinker, 212 Cal.App.4th 1502 (Cal. App. 2013) (credit calculation on remand; authority to award credits)