People v. Gonzales
6 Cal. App. 5th 1067
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Craig Gonzales pled no contest in consolidated cases: a 2003/2005 case charging multiple forgery/theft-related counts and a separate 2006 identity-theft charge; he was sentenced in 2008 to consecutive terms.
- In Jan 2015 Gonzales petitioned under Prop 47 (§ 1170.18) to redesignate several forgery-related convictions as misdemeanors; the petition listed only count numbers and statutes.
- The prosecutor opposed, arguing some forged instruments exceeded the $950 threshold and that Gonzales’s 2006 identity-theft conviction disqualified the other forgery convictions under amended § 473(b).
- The trial court denied the petition by checking a form box citing Gonzales’s “current convictions,” without elaboration.
- The Court of Appeal reviewed eligibility de novo, considered ballot materials to resolve statutory ambiguity, and found the record adequate for appellate review.
- The appellate court reversed denial as to counts 1 and 3–7 (remanding to determine eligibility) and affirmed denial as to count 8 (forged driver’s licenses), concluding the 2006 identity-theft conviction did not disqualify unrelated forgery counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an identity-theft conviction in the same sentencing proceeding bars Prop 47 relief for separate forgery convictions under § 473(b) | § 473(b) applies if defendant is convicted of both forgery and identity theft in the same proceeding | § 473(b) requires the identity theft be transactionally related to the forgery (same conduct/transaction) | The phrase is ambiguous; ballot materials show voters intended transactionally related identity theft to bar misdemeanor treatment — hence unrelated 2006 identity-theft conviction does not disqualify counts 1 and 3–7 |
| Whether the face values of multiple forged instruments may be aggregated to exceed the $950 threshold and bar relief | Prosecutor implicitly aggregated values to argue ineligibility | Values cannot be aggregated across convictions; each instrument’s stated value governs eligibility | Aggregation is improper; values of the checks/bills here do not preclude misdemeanor status for counts 1 and 3–7 |
| Whether forged driver’s licenses fall within § 473(b)’s list of instruments eligible for redesignation | People argued count eight still ineligible | Defendant argued count eight qualifies because value under $950 | § 473(b) lists specific instruments; forged driver’s licenses are not among them — denial as to count eight affirmed |
| Whether due process or burden-of-production problems required reversal because trial court gave a cursory ruling | People did not assert forfeiture; opposed petition with evidence | Gonzales argued trial court’s cursory order denied due process and that burden to produce eligibility evidence was improper | No due process violation; burden arguments contrary to precedent and largely moot because prosecutor produced evidence; appellate de novo review appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bush, 245 Cal.App.4th 992 (discusses that value of other stolen property in other convictions is irrelevant to eligibility for resentencing)
- Flannery v. Prentice, 26 Cal.4th 572 (statutory construction should avoid absurd results)
- People v. Covarrubias, 1 Cal.5th 838 (due process limits in postconviction relief proceedings)
- People v. Johnston, 247 Cal.App.4th 252 (analysis of Prop 47 § 1170.18 procedures)
- People v. Oehmigen, 232 Cal.App.4th 1 (de novo review of eligibility questions under resentencing statutes)