People v. Romanowski
215 Cal. Rptr. 3d 758
| Cal. | 2017Background
- Defendant Daniel Romanowski pleaded no contest (2014) to felony theft of access card account information (Pen. Code § 484e(d)) and was sentenced to four years in county jail.
- Voters passed Proposition 47 (2014), which reclassified many former felonies as misdemeanors when the value of property obtained by theft does not exceed $950 (Pen. Code § 490.2(a)); it allowed resentencing petitions (§ 1170.18).
- Romanowski petitioned for recall/resentencing under § 1170.18; the trial court denied the petition, reasoning Prop 47 did not apply to access-card-information theft.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, remanding to determine whether the value of the stolen access-card information was under $950.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether Prop 47’s § 490.2(a) covers theft of access-card account information and how to determine the $950 valuation for intangible stolen data.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Prop 47 (§ 490.2(a)) apply to theft of access card account information (§ 484e(d))? | People: It should not; the statute wasn’t intended to cover this form of theft. | Romanowski: Prop 47’s broad "obtaining any property by theft" language includes access-card information. | Held: Prop 47 applies; § 490.2(a) encompasses § 484e(d) thefts. |
| What valuation test applies to determine the $950 threshold? | People: Applying $950 is impractical for access-card data; valuation problems show exclusion was intended. | Romanowski: Value is de minimis (e.g., plastic card value) or otherwise not susceptible to fair-market valuation. | Held: Use Penal Code § 484’s "reasonable and fair market value" test to apply the $950 threshold. |
| May courts consider illicit/black-market evidence when no legal market exists? | People: Implicitly resisted reliance on black-market valuation as unworkable or improper. | Romanowski: Impliedly argued against black-market valuation as unseemly and unworkable. | Held: Courts may consider evidence of illegal-market value where no legal market exists; illicit-sale evidence is admissible to establish fair-market value. |
| Who bears burden to prove § 1170.18 eligibility and when is an evidentiary hearing required? | People: (implicit) burden and evidentiary issues could defeat petitions when facts are unclear. | Romanowski: Petitioner must show eligibility; may need hearing if facts unresolved. | Held: Petitioner bears ultimate burden (Evid. Code § 500); court must hold an evidentiary hearing if the verified petition and record create a reasonable likelihood of entitlement and factual issues remain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.5th 984 (Cal. 2016) (discussing Prop 47’s purpose to reduce nonviolent prison population)
- People v. Farell, 28 Cal.4th 381 (Cal. 2002) (rejecting exclusion of intangible property from statutes because valuation is difficult)
- In re Lance W., 37 Cal.3d 873 (Cal. 1985) (presumption that electorate is aware of existing laws; use of initiative preamble/arguments in interpreting intent)
- People v. Morales, 63 Cal.4th 399 (Cal. 2016) (relying on Legislative Analyst’s analysis to infer voters’ understanding of Prop 47)
- People v. Tijerina, 1 Cal.3d 41 (Cal. 1969) (using fair-market value as test for valuation in theft prosecutions)
- People v. Pena, 68 Cal.App.3d 100 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977) (defining fair market value as the price a willing buyer and seller would agree upon)
- People v. Davis, 19 Cal.4th 301 (Cal. 1998) (discussing consolidation of theft-related offenses under Penal Code § 484)
- People v. Williams, 57 Cal.4th 776 (Cal. 2013) (noting elements of theft by false pretenses and valuation issues)