199 Cal. Rptr. 3d 728
Cal. Ct. App. 2nd2016Background
- Franco was charged with forgery and receiving stolen property on October 17, 2012, and admitted five prior prison terms.
- He pleaded guilty, four priors were struck, a four-year sentence was suspended, and he was placed on three years’ formal probation.
- On August 11, 2014, Franco failed to appear at a probation violation hearing; probation was revoked and a bench warrant issued.
- Franco was taken into custody on November 4, 2014; on November 19, 2014, the trial court found probation violated and imposed the previously suspended four-year sentence.
- Franco filed an oral petition for resentencing, which the court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a petition under 1170.18 may be oral | Franco (Franco) argues oral petition suffices. | People (Attorney General) contends requirement is for written petition. | No written petition required; oral petition permitted. |
| Correct scope of value under 473(b) for forgery | Cuellar shows intrinsic value governs felony/misdemeanor. | Value must be face value for purpose of 473(b); court did not err. | Value for 473(b) is the face value; no resentencing on forgery. |
| Resentencing on receiving stolen property | Same valuation argument supports resentencing as misdemeanor. | Petition did not address this offense; no error shown. | Franco failed to petition to resentence on this offense; no error noted. |
| Clerical error in abstract of judgment | Judgment date on abstract was incorrect. | Clerical error acknowledged and can be corrected. | Abstract corrected to reflect proper sentencing date (2014). |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Amaya, 242 Cal.App.4th 972 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (no statutory written petition requirement for 1170.18)
- People v. Rivera, 233 Cal.App.4th 1085 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (explains Proposition 47 effects on felonies to misdemeanors)
- Cuellar v. People, 165 Cal.App.4th 833 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (intrinsic value of forged instrument; does not control face-value rule here)
- Flannery v. Prentice, 26 Cal.4th 572 (Cal. 2001) (avoid absurd consequences in statutory interpretation)
- People v. Mitchell, 26 Cal.4th 181 (Cal. 2001) (clerical corrections of judgments permitted on appeal)
- People v. Saunders, 5 Cal.4th 580 (Cal. 1993) (ordinary rules of appellate procedure apply where not preserved below)