People v. Liu
21 Cal. App. 5th 143
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Si H. Liu was convicted in 2013 of multiple theft-related felonies for obtaining victims' credit cards, IDs, and other identifying information and using them to make unauthorized purchases; she received a 10-year state prison term.
- After an earlier appeal that reversed one count and stayed others (Liu I), Liu petitioned under Proposition 47 (§ 1170.18) to recall and resentence six felony counts as misdemeanors: five counts under Penal Code § 484e(d) (access card/account information) and one count under § 530.5(c)(3) (possession of personal identifying information of 10+ persons).
- Liu filed pro se petitions indicating the amounts in question were under $950 but submitted no supporting evidence; the trial court denied all petitions, finding her ineligible.
- On appeal, the court reviewed (1) whether § 484e(d) counts are eligible for Prop. 47 relief when the value is $950 or less, applying People v. Romanowski, and (2) whether § 530.5(c) convictions are eligible for Prop. 47 relief or otherwise fall within the reclassification scheme of § 490.2.
- The court affirmed denial as to counts where the record showed charges/restitution over $950 (counts 2, 6, 14), reversed and remanded as to counts where value was unclear or under $950 (counts 21, 23), and held § 530.5(c) is not eligible for Prop. 47 relief as a matter of law (count 25).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 484e(d) theft-of-access-card convictions qualify for Prop. 47 resentencing when value ≤ $950 | People: Romanowski requires proof of value; when value > $950 not eligible | Liu: Romanowski requires market-value proof and remand because trial record lacks black-market valuation | Court: §484e(d) eligible if value ≤ $950; where record shows unauthorized charges > $950 denial affirmed (counts 2, 6, 14); where record unclear remanded (counts 21, 23) |
| Proper method to value stolen access-card information for Prop. 47 eligibility | People: courts may use reasonable/fair market value or evidence of use (unauthorized charges) | Liu: Valuation must be black-market fair-market value; absence requires remand | Court: Not limited to black-market valuation; where cards were used, the unauthorized charges provide at least a minimum value; black-market evidence is one permissible method |
| Whether § 530.5(c)(3) (possession of PI of 10+ people) is within Prop. 47 reclassification via § 490.2 | Liu: §530.5 is a theft-like statute and should be eligible | People: §530.5 is broader than theft and not among statutes reduced by Prop. 47 | Court: §530.5(c) is not a statute "defining grand theft" nor limited to obtaining property without consent; Prop. 47 relief does not apply to §530.5(c) (count 25 denied) |
| Whether Page affects § 530.5 analysis (i.e., a non-labeled-theft statute can still qualify) | Liu: Page suggests statutes not labeled "grand theft" may still be eligible | People: Page is distinguishable; §530.5 proscribes non-theft harms | Court: Page not helpful here; §530.5 addresses broader, non-pecuniary harms and lacks an without-consent element, so Prop. 47 inapplicable |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Romanowski, 2 Cal.5th 903 (clarifies Prop. 47 eligibility for theft of access-card information and valuation methods)
- People v. Page, 3 Cal.5th 1175 (explains that offenses not labeled "grand theft" may nonetheless qualify under Prop. 47 when conduct is theft)
- People v. Sherow, 239 Cal.App.4th 875 (discusses petitioner burden and Prop. 47 petition procedures)
- People v. Valenzuela, 205 Cal.App.4th 800 (describes harms of identity fraud and legislative intent behind § 530.5)