People v. Salmorin
1 Cal. App. 5th 738
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 2013 Salmorin pleaded no contest to one count of forgery (§ 470(d)) after police found five stolen checks in his and co-defendant Spratt’s possession; other counts were dismissed and he received probation.
- In 2015 Salmorin petitioned under Proposition 47 (§ 1170.18) seeking recall/resentencing, checking that the amount in question did not exceed $950.
- The police report (admitted by agreement) showed individual check face amounts: $245 (payable to an alias used by Salmorin), $880, $208, a blank check, and one other.
- The prosecutor argued the values could be aggregated because the checks were possessed/forged as part of a joint enterprise; the trial court denied the petition after finding an aggregate value above $950.
- On appeal the court considered (1) whether the court could rely on the police report, (2) whether value of a forged check is its face value, and (3) whether multiple checks’ values may be aggregated under § 473(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the trial court consider the police report (not in record of conviction) when resolving a Prop 47 petition? | Court may consider extra-record evidence to determine value and facts relevant to eligibility. | Bradford limits evidence to record of conviction; thus police report should not be used. | Court may consider police report here because Prop 47 eligibility often depends on facts (value) not recorded at conviction and parties agreed to its admission. |
| How is the "value" of a forged check measured under § 473(b)? | — (People accepted face value) | Face value should be used; intrinsic/market value arguments (Cuellar) are inapplicable. | Value corresponds to the face/stated value of the check for § 473(b) purposes. |
| May a court aggregate the face values of multiple forged checks to determine Prop 47 eligibility under § 473(b)? | Aggregation permitted where checks arise from one charged offense or joint enterprise; aggregate exceeds $950 so ineligible. | Only each individual instrument’s value counts; aggregation is not authorized by § 473(b). | Aggregation is not permitted under § 473(b); court erred by using aggregate to deny resentencing. |
| Does the Bailey/unit-of-prosecution doctrine allow treating multiple forgeries as one offense for value aggregation? | Aggregation appropriate when acts are part of a single scheme; Hughes suggested possible indivisible conduct. | Neder/Whitmer and precedent refuse to extend Bailey to forgery; each forged instrument is a separate offense. | Bailey aggregation does not apply to forgery; each instrument is a discrete unit of prosecution absent explicit statutory aggregation. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hoffman, 241 Cal.App.4th 1304 (Cal. Ct. App.) (§ 473(b) does not permit aggregating check values)
- People v. Whitmer, 59 Cal.4th 733 (Cal. 2014) (Bailey aggregation limited; multiple distinct fraudulent acts can support multiple counts)
- People v. Neder, 16 Cal.App.3d 846 (Cal. Ct. App.) (Bailey doctrine should not be extended to forgery; one count per instrument)
- People v. Cuellar, 165 Cal.App.4th 833 (Cal. Ct. App.) (discusses intrinsic vs. face value of forged instruments)
- People v. Bradford, 227 Cal.App.4th 1322 (Cal. Ct. App.) (Prop 36 eligibility limited to record of conviction—distinguished)
- People v. Perkins, 244 Cal.App.4th 129 (Cal. Ct. App.) (explains why Prop 47 differs from Prop 36; extra-record evidence may be required)
- People v. Rivera, 233 Cal.App.4th 1085 (Cal. Ct. App.) (overview of Prop 47 resentencing framework)
Disposition: The trial court’s denial of Salmorin’s § 1170.18 petition is reversed and remanded for resentencing consistent with Prop 47 unless the court finds resentencing would pose an unreasonable public safety risk.