6 Cal. 5th 433
Cal.2018Background
- In 2012 Franco possessed a stolen check forged in the amount of $1,500; payee blank. He pleaded guilty to forgery (Pen. Code §475(a)).
- At initial disposition Franco received a suspended prison sentence and probation; probation was later revoked in 2014.
- After Proposition 47 (2014) reclassified certain forgery of negotiable instruments as misdemeanors when the instrument's "value" is ≤ $950, Franco sought misdemeanor resentencing.
- Trial court denied resentencing because the forged check was written for $1,500; Court of Appeal affirmed, treating the check's face amount as its value.
- The Supreme Court granted review to decide how to determine the “value” of a forged check under Penal Code §473(b) as amended by Proposition 47.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the “value” of a forged check under §473(b)? | Value is the face amount written on the instrument. | Value should be the check's actual/market worth (what could be obtained), possibly less than face amount if unlikely to be cashed. | Value is the amount stated on the face of the check; reject intrinsic-paper-only and Lowery’s market-worth test. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lowery, 8 Cal.App.5th 533 (Cal. Ct. App.) (held value = amount defendant could obtain; court of appeal decision discussed and disapproved to extent inconsistent)
- People v. Cuellar, 165 Cal.App.4th 833 (Cal. Ct. App.) (for theft, value of forged check was intrinsic paper value)
- People v. Gonzales, 6 Cal.5th 44 (Cal.) (discusses Proposition 47 and statutory interpretation principles)
- People v. Romanowski, 2 Cal.5th 903 (Cal.) (applied fair-market-value test for stolen access card information under theft statute)
- People v. Bendit, 111 Cal. 274 (Cal.) (historical explanation of the societal harm from forgery)