People v. Floyd CA2/1, B269433

Background

Victim Melody Platt reported her rare Alex Moulton bicycle stolen from a garage where the cabinet lock had been cut; she later recognized the bike in a Craigslist ad that included a photo showing distinctive Home Depot clamps she had used.
Inglewood detective Jose Barragan arranged an undercover meeting with seller Terell Floyd; Floyd claimed he had inherited the bicycle from his father and negotiated a $3,300 sale before being arrested. Photographs of the bicycle were found on Floyd’s phone.
A jury convicted Floyd of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)).
At sentencing the trial court denied Floyd’s motion to dismiss a prior strike, imposed the doubled high term for the offense due to prior serious/violent felonies, added two consecutive one‑year prior prison term enhancements, and awarded custody credits and fines (total sentence: eight years).
Appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders/Wende brief raising no issues; Floyd submitted a pro se letter raising multiple claims which the court considered on appeal.

Issues

Issue	People’s Argument	Floyd’s Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence of knowledge that property was stolen	Jury could infer knowledge from Floyd’s false statement that he inherited the bike	He lacked knowledge; he believed the bike was given by an old friend in exchange for tattoo work	Affirmed — false/evasive statements to police allowed the jury to infer knowledge; substantial evidence supports conviction
New factual theory raised on appeal (ownership from friend)	N/A (reliance on trial record and jury credibility findings)	Claims for the first time on appeal that he received bike from a friend known by nickname	Rejected — would require reweighing credibility; appellate court cannot retry facts
Entrapment by undercover officer	Police provided only an opportunity; crime (receipt) occurred before contact with undercover officer	Officer’s undercover status and actions induced commission of offense	Rejected — no duty to disclose undercover status; receipt occurred prior to Barragan’s involvement, so entrapment not shown
Warrantless search of home	No evidence seized at trial from the search was used against Floyd	Search violated rights; evidence should be suppressed	Rejected (or not considered) — appellant points to no evidence recovered or used at trial; suppression not required under record
Retroactive redesignation of prior felonies under Prop 47	Trial relied on prior convictions for enhancements	Prior 2011 and 2014 felonies were redesignated as misdemeanors under Prop 47, so cannot be used as predicates	Rejected — record contains no evidence that those convictions were redesignated; argument unsupported on appeal
Double jeopardy challenge to sentence enhancement using priors	Use of prior convictions to enhance sentence is permissible	Doubling base term under Pen. Code § 1170.12(c)(1) violates double jeopardy	Rejected — use of prior convictions to enhance later sentences does not offend double jeopardy principles

Key Cases Cited

People v. Hyde, 51 Cal.2d 152 (1958) (false or evasive statements can support inference defendant knew property was stolen)
People v. Brown, 150 Cal.App.3d 968 (1984) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency of evidence)
People v. Smith, 40 Cal.4th 483 (2007) (no duty for undercover officer to disclose identity)
People v. Watson, 22 Cal.4th 220 (2000) (entrapment requires conduct likely to induce a normally law‑abiding person to commit the offense)
People v. Maikhio, 51 Cal.4th 1074 (2011) (California exclusionary analysis tied to federal Fourth Amendment rule for suppression)
Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. 389 (1995) (use of prior convictions to enhance later sentence does not violate double jeopardy)
People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (1979) (procedures for appellate counsel filing brief when no arguable issues are raised)