People v. Gonzales, 237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 193

Background

In 2003 Gonzales used counterfeit IDs and checks to make purchases; law enforcement later charged him with multiple offenses including four counts of forgery (checks) and related offenses.
In 2006–2007 Gonzales participated in a jailhouse scheme to open fraudulent AT&T accounts using others’ identifying information; he was convicted of identity theft for that conduct.
The three matters were consolidated and resolved in a single plea/sentencing proceeding in 2008; the judgment included both the 2003 forgery convictions and the later identity theft conviction.
Proposition 47 (2014) amended Penal Code § 473 to make certain forgeries misdemeanors when the instrument’s value is ≤ $950, but § 473(b) excludes from misdemeanor relief “any person who is convicted both of forgery and of identity theft.”
Gonzales petitioned for resentencing under Prop. 47 (§ 1170.18); the trial court denied relief, the Court of Appeal reversed for several counts, and the Supreme Court granted review to decide how related forgery and identity theft convictions must be to trigger § 473(b)’s exclusion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 473(b) bars misdemeanor resentencing whenever a defendant has both forgery and identity theft convictions (regardless of connection).	§ 473(b) disqualifies any defendant convicted of both offenses; consolidation or concurrent conviction is sufficient.	§ 473(b) requires a connection between the two convictions; unrelated or temporally separate identity theft cannot block relief.	The convictions must be related: § 473(b) excludes resentencing only where the forgery and identity theft convictions are connected (i.e., the identity theft was committed in connection with the forgery).
Whether the present-tense phrasing shows § 473(b) is aimed at related current offenses rather than past unrelated convictions.	N/A (People relied on plain reading that any dual conviction suffices).	The present tense and statutory structure indicate a nexus is required between the offenses.	Majority: present-tense framing supports requiring a meaningful relationship between the offenses, not mere prior or separate convictions.
Whether the Legislative Analyst’s explanation and ballot materials can be used to resolve ambiguity.	N/A (People emphasized statutory text).	Ballot materials show voters intended to bar resentencing only when identity theft was committed in connection with forging a check/instrument.	Court permits use of ballot materials to resolve ambiguity and adopts the “in connection with” interpretive lens.
Application to Gonzales: do his 2003 forgeries and 2006 identity-theft conviction bar resentencing?	People argued the consolidated conviction record sufficed to deny relief.	Gonzales argued the offenses were years apart and unrelated, so § 473(b) does not apply.	Held: Gonzales’s offenses were unrelated and occurred years apart; he is eligible for resentencing on the affected counts and the Court of Appeal judgment is affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

Apple Inc. v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.4th 128 (interpretive principles for reviewing statutory language)
Alcala v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.4th 1205 (statutory interpretation: ordinary meaning and context)
People v. DeHoyos, 4 Cal.5th 594 (describing remedial objectives of Proposition 47)
People v. Romanowski, 2 Cal.5th 903 (discussing relationship between identity-theft facts and forged instruments)
Larkin v. W.C.A.B., 62 Cal.4th 152 (use of extrinsic sources to determine voters’ intent)
In re Lance W., 37 Cal.3d 873 (presuming enacting body knew existing law when drafting initiative)