People v. Whitmer
59 Cal. 4th 733
| Cal. | 2014Background
- Defendant Jeffrey Whitmer, a motorcycle dealership manager, arranged 20 fraudulent sales to fictitious buyers using falsified financing documents, causing the dealership losses over $250,000.
- Each fraudulent transaction involved a different vehicle, occurred on 13 dates, and used separate paperwork; some dates had multiple distinct fake buyers.
- A jury convicted Whitmer of 20 counts of grand theft (Pen. Code § 487) and found a loss-enhancement true (former Pen. Code § 12022.6), and he was sentenced to 12 years.
- On appeal, Whitmer argued he could be convicted of only one count because the acts were part of a single scheme; the Court of Appeal affirmed multiple convictions and urged this court to revisit People v. Bailey.
- The California Supreme Court held that multiple convictions are permissible for separate and distinct acts even if part of an overarching scheme, but declined to apply that new interpretation retroactively to Whitmer because existing appellate precedent would have made the contrary result foreseeable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether multiple grand-theft convictions may be sustained for separate takings that were committed pursuant to a single overarching scheme | Prosecution: Separate, distinct acts with separate paperwork support separate counts; Bailey does not bar multiple convictions for such facts | Whitmer: Under People v. Bailey, multiple takings pursuant to one intention/impulse/plan constitute a single theft, so only one grand-theft conviction should stand | A defendant may be convicted of multiple counts when there are separate and distinct acts of theft even if part of one overarching scheme; but this new interpretation cannot be applied retroactively to Whitmer because longstanding Court of Appeal authority would have made multiple convictions unforeseeable |
| Whether Bailey’s aggregation rule applies differently to petty thefts versus grand thefts | Prosecution: Bailey should be read consistent with earlier cases allowing multiple grand theft convictions for separate acts | Whitmer: Bailey’s one-intention/impulse/plan language bars multiple grand-theft convictions when takings arise from a single plan | Court: Bailey must be read in light of its facts; it addressed serial petty receipts from a single misrepresentation. The aggregation test (one intention/impulse/plan) applies, but separate and distinct fraudulent acts with new intent support multiple convictions; the Court did not definitively limit application between petty and grand thefts here |
| Whether stare decisis or legislative inaction requires maintaining the narrower appellate-line rule (that aggregates multiple grand thefts arising from a single scheme) | Whitmer: Longstanding Court of Appeal rulings created predictable law supporting aggregation | State: Earlier Supreme Court cases and statutory indicators support multiple convictions; legislative silence not dispositive | Court: Interpreting Bailey to allow multiple convictions is consistent with pre-Bailey authority and legislative enhancements; stare decisis does not bar reinterpretation, but retroactive application would violate due process here |
| Retroactive application of new rule | State: New interpretation should apply | Whitmer: Applying new rule increasing criminal liability violates due process when defendant relied on prevailing appellate line | Held: Due process forbids retroactive application here because a long, uncontradicted line of Court of Appeal decisions supported the contrary rule at the time of the offenses |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bailey, 55 Cal.2d 514 (Supreme Court of California) (establishes aggregation test: one intention/one impulse/one plan can make multiple takings a single theft)
- People v. Stanford, 16 Cal.2d 247 (Supreme Court of California) (upholds multiple grand-theft convictions for separate transactions on different dates)
- People v. Rabe, 202 Cal. 409 (Supreme Court of California) (supports separate convictions where property obtained at different times and of different character)
- People v. Ashley, 42 Cal.2d 246 (Supreme Court of California) (rejected one-count-per-victim rule where separate payments each exceeded grand-theft threshold)
- People v. Kronemyer, 189 Cal.App.3d 314 (Court of Appeal) (exemplifies appellate line reversing multiple counts where takings were held to arise from a single plan)
- People v. Sullivan, 80 Cal.App.3d 16 (Court of Appeal) (discusses single-impulse instruction and aggregation of takings)
- People v. Jaska, 194 Cal.App.4th 971 (Court of Appeal) (analyzed factors for applying Bailey and declined aggregation where takings appeared opportunistic)
- People v. Blakeley, 23 Cal.4th 82 (Supreme Court of California) (due-process principle barring retroactive application of judicially expanded criminal liability)