People v. Vandiver, E065899

In 2012 Angela Kay Vandiver was arrested with 10 blank, unendorsed checks belonging to another person; she admitted possessing them and pled guilty to felony receiving stolen property (§ 496(a)).
The police report and victim statement indicated the victim’s Citibank account had been subject to fraud and nearly $3,000 had been drawn; the account was later closed. Vandiver denied using any checks.
Vandiver was sentenced on the felony conviction and later, after Proposition 47 (2014) reduced some theft-related felonies to misdemeanors where value ≤ $950, filed a petition under Penal Code § 1170.18 to redesignate her conviction as a misdemeanor.
The prosecution opposed, arguing the checks’ value equaled the linked account balance (≈ $3,000) and thus exceeded the $950 threshold; it submitted a victim affidavit to that effect.
At a hearing the prosecutor conceded the checks were blank and unused and the police report (considered by the court) showed the account had been closed before Vandiver’s arrest; the trial court found the fair market value of the blank checks de minimis and granted redesignation.
The People appealed, challenging (1) the trial court’s consideration of the petition absent supporting evidence attached to it, and (2) the valuation of the blank checks.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a § 1170.18 petition must be dismissed if it does not attach evidence of value	Petition was insufficient because it lacked attached evidence showing value; court should have summarily denied or required refiling	Trial court may exercise discretion, consider court records, and hold a hearing; dismissal would be improper when amendment or hearing can cure defects	Court upheld trial court’s discretion to consider police report and hold a hearing; no abuse of discretion in reaching merits
Proper measure of value for blank, unendorsed checks under Prop 47 (≤ $950)	Value of checks equals the balance in the linked bank account (~$3,000); thus ineligible for redesignation	Fair market value of blank, unendorsed checks is de minimis; value is not the account holder’s access to funds	Court held fair market value controls; blank, unendorsed checks have a nonzero but de minimis fair market value and did not exceed $950; People failed to show error

People v. Rizo, 22 Cal.4th 681 (2000) (standard of review: legal questions de novo; factual findings for substantial evidence)
People v. Swanson, 142 Cal.App.3d 104 (1983) (fair market value is the test for valuing stolen property)
People v. Pena, 68 Cal.App.3d 100 (1977) (definition and application of fair market or ‘highest price a willing buyer and willing seller will arrive at’)
People v. Lizarraga, 122 Cal.App.2d 436 (1954) (value of stolen articles measured by fair market value, not value to a particular individual)
People v. Gonzales, 6 Cal.App.5th 1067 (2016) (blank checks have no face value for purposes of a related forgery statute amendment under Prop 47)
People v. Cuellar, 165 Cal.App.4th 833 (2008) (a forged check may have slight intrinsic value as a negotiable instrument)