People v. Vandiver
E065899A
Cal. Ct. App.Mar 30, 2017Background
- In 2012 Angela Kay Vandiver was arrested with 10 blank checks belonging to another person; she admitted possession and pled guilty to felony receiving stolen property (§ 496).
- Police report and victim statements indicated the victim’s account had been subject to fraud and nearly $3,000 had been withdrawn; the checks found on Vandiver were blank and unused.
- Vandiver was sentenced to two years plus an enhancement; in 2015 Proposition 47 made receiving stolen property a misdemeanor when property value is $950 or less and created § 1170.18 resentencing relief.
- Vandiver petitioned under § 1170.18 to redesignate the felony as a misdemeanor, asserting the checks were worth ≤ $950; the People opposed, arguing the linked account balance (~$3,000) established value.
- The trial court held a hearing, considered the police report (showing checks were blank, unused, and the account had been closed before Vandiver’s arrest), found the checks’ value de minimis, granted the petition, and the People appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court should have summarily denied § 1170.18 petition for lack of evidence | Vandiver failed to attach evidence of value; court should dismiss petition as unsupported | Court may consider court records and evidence; petitioner need not attach everything to make a prima facie showing | Court may exercise discretion to reach merits; no abuse of discretion in holding a hearing and considering conviction record |
| Proper method to value blank, stolen, blank checks for § 496/§ 1170.18 purposes | Value equals funds in linked account (≈$3,000); thus exceeds $950 and ineligible for redesignation | Fair market value governs; blank unendorsed checks have little or de minimis fair market/black‑market value | Fair market value governs; value to account holder is wrong measure; trial court’s de minimis finding upheld |
| Whether black‑market evidence of value is permissible and was forfeited | Black‑market value could prove market value; People argued account balance instead | Court may consider illegal‑market evidence; People declined to present black‑market evidence below | Supreme Court has approved use of illegal‑market evidence; People forfeited this argument by not presenting it at trial |
| Whether substantial evidence supports trial court’s valuation | Victim affidavit says >$3,000 in account when checks were stolen—so value >$950 | Police report shows account was closed and funds withdrawn before arrest; no evidence Vandiver used checks | Substantial evidence supports trial court: account funds were removed and checks were blank/unused; de minimis valuation affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Swanson, 142 Cal.App.3d 104 (discusses fair market valuation test for stolen property)
- People v. Pena, 68 Cal.App.3d 100 (defines fair market price as test for theft valuation)
- People v. Rizo, 22 Cal.4th 681 (standards of review for statutory interpretation and findings)
- People v. Huerta, 3 Cal.App.5th 539 (court may consider conviction record when adjudicating § 1170.18 petition)
- People v. Gonzales, 6 Cal.App.5th 1067 (blank checks have no face value for purposes of amended forgery statute)
- People v. Cuellar, 165 Cal.App.4th 833 (checks known to be forged have slight intrinsic value as negotiable instruments)
- People v. Lizarraga, 122 Cal.App.2d 436 (value for felony threshold is fair market value, not value to particular individual)
- People v. Smith, 1 Cal.App.5th 266 (description of check‑cashing practice and fees)
- People v. Perkins, 244 Cal.App.4th 129 (procedural and review principles cited regarding § 496 and valuation)