People v. Heath CA1/2
A145457
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 25, 2016Background
- In 2012 Heath pleaded no contest to felony receiving stolen property (Pen. Code § 496) and was placed on probation; other charges were dismissed.
- In Feb 2013 the trial court ordered Heath to pay $1,270 in victim restitution based on a probation department report listing stolen/damaged property totaling $1,270.
- In May 2015 Heath petitioned under Proposition 47 (Pen. Code § 1170.18) to redesignate his felony conviction as a misdemeanor (value threshold $950), submitting no supporting documentation.
- At the short hearing the prosecutor pointed to the prior restitution order as establishing $1,270 in losses; Heath’s counsel did not object and instead argued Heath’s share was less because there were co-defendants.
- The trial court denied the petition, reasoning co-participants are jointly and severally liable for the full loss, and Heath appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could consider a prior restitution order to determine value for Prop 47 redesignation | People: The restitution order in the court file establishes the value at $1,270, making Heath ineligible | Heath: Court limited to the record of conviction; no record finding that value exceeded $950, so court could not deny redesignation | Court: Heath forfeited this claim by failing to object below; denial affirmed |
| Whether Heath needed to present evidence or bear burden to show value ≤ $950 | People (below): relied on restitution order; appellate briefing cites cases holding petitioner bears burden | Heath: No burden; court should rely only on adjudicated facts/record of conviction | Court: Did not resolve burden issue because of forfeiture; noted competing authority but affirmed denial |
| Whether co-participant liability reduces an individual’s attributable value for eligibility | People: Joint and several liability allows victim to recover full loss from any participant | Heath: His counsel argued his portion was under $950 because of multiple perpetrators | Court: Rejected Heath’s argument; upheld joint and several liability as basis to deny petition |
| Whether appellate review excused failure to object because question was one of court authority | Heath: Issue is a question of law about court power; thus not forfeited | People: Forfeiture applies; no important public policy implicated to excuse failure | Court: Steir inapposite; forfeiture applies and issue is not preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Partida, 37 Cal.4th 428 (preservation required for evidentiary objections)
- People v. Romero, 44 Cal.4th 386 (forfeiture rule applies to statutory claims)
- People v. Geier, 41 Cal.4th 555 (discussing preservation and related principles)
- In re Steir, 152 Cal.App.4th 63 (discussing waiver/estoppel when public policy concerns present)
- People v. Leon, 124 Cal.App.4th 620 (victim may recover full economic loss; joint and several liability)
- People v. Sherow, 239 Cal.App.4th 875 (holding petitioner bears burden to prove eligibility under Prop 47)
- People v. Rivas-Colon, 241 Cal.App.4th 444 (trial court properly denied resentencing where petitioner failed to prove value ≤ $950)