Skip to content
Name: People v. Franco
Case #: S233973
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 12/10/2018

The value of a forged check is the amount written on the check. In July 2012, Franco was found in possession of a recently stolen check containing the owner's forged signature and made out in the amount of $1,500. Franco pleaded guilty to forgery (Pen. Code, § 475, subd. (a)), and the court sentenced him to state prison but suspended the sentence and placed him on probation. In 2014, Franco violated probation and petitioned the court to resentence him as a misdemeanant under Proposition 47, arguing that the check's value was less than $950. The court denied the request and…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Pipkin
Case #: A148228
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 10/02/2018

Appeal dismissed as moot where appellant's mentally disordered offender (MDO) commitment expired (and was not renewed) before the appellate court determined the impact of Proposition 47's reduction of his felony to a misdemeanor. Appellant was committed as a mentally disordered offender in 2011 following his felony conviction for grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487) in 2009. During recommitment proceedings in 2015, appellant's grand theft conviction was reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47. Appellant moved to dismiss the pending recommitment petition, arguing that further commitment was unauthorized given that his qualifying conviction must be treated as…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Gonzales
Case #: S240044
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 08/27/2018

To exclude a forgery conviction from sentencing as a misdemeanor under Proposition 47 when the defendant is also convicted of identity theft, the conduct related to the convictions must have been "in connection with" each other. In a single consolidated proceeding, Gonzales pleaded guilty to multiple offenses stemming from three different cases, including four counts of check forgery arising from conduct that occurred in 2003 and one count of identity theft committed in 2006. After the passage of Proposition 47 (which reduced certain theft- and drug-related offenses from felonies to misdemeanors and created a petition procedure for retroactively…

View Full Summary
Name: In re C.B.
Case #: S237762
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 08/30/2018

Juveniles who had to submit their DNA after suffering felony adjudications may not have their DNA profiles expunged after their offenses were reduced to misdemeanors under Proposition 47. In two separate cases, juveniles C.B. and C.H. were declared wards of the court based on conduct that was felonious when committed. This finding required them to submit their DNA to the State Department of Justice (DOJ) databank. They sought to expunge this material after their offenses were reduced to misdemeanors under Proposition 47. Their motions were denied and the rulings were affirmed on appeal. The California Supreme Court granted review in…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Buycks
Case #: S231765
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 07/30/2018

Editor's Note: The California Supreme Court granted review in People v. Buycks, S231765/B262023, People v. Valenzuela, S232900/D066907, and In re Guiomar, S238888/H043114 to resolve similar issues concerning Proposition 47's effect on felony-based enhancements in resentencing proceedings under Penal Code section 1170.18. The court consolidated the cases for oral argument and opinion, with Buycks as the lead case. The specific issue addressed in each case is summarized more fully below. In short, the court concluded that, in certain circumstances, Proposition 47 permits defendants to challenge felony-based section 667.5 and 12022.1 enhancements when the underlying felonies have been reduced to misdemeanors under…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Jackson
Case #: A151676
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 08/20/2018

Where defendant's conviction for violating Vehicle Code section 10851 could have rested on either driving or taking the vehicle, reversal is required because the value of the vehicle was not proven. A jury convicted Jackson of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851). On appeal he challenged the Vehicle Code conviction because the value of the car was not established. Held: Reversed and remanded. Vehicle Code section 10851 prohibits the taking or driving of another person's vehicle without their consent, with the intent to either permanently or temporarily deprive the owner of…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Bussey
Case #: C079797
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 06/27/2018
Subsequent History: Review granted 9/12/2018: S250152

On remand for reconsideration in light of People v. Page, Vehicle Code section 10851 conviction reversed because pattern jury instructions allowed jury to convict defendant of a felony violation without the necessary felony element findings. A week after a car was stolen from the owner, Bussey was stopped while driving the stolen car without license plates and he told police he received the car from a third party. He was charged with a number of offenses and a jury found him guilty of felony unauthorized taking or driving of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851) and felony receiving a…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Bear
Case #: H044609
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 07/23/2018

Penal Code section 1170.18 confers discretion on the trial court to grant Proposition 47 petitioners leave to amend their petitions, including after the original petition was denied. In 1980, Bear pleaded guilty to felony grand theft person (Pen. Code, § 484-487) after an altercation with a high school student over a Ted Nugent T-shirt. In June 2016, Bear filed a Proposition 47 petition to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor. The petition did not identify the T-shirt as the stolen item or allege the value of the stolen property. The trial court denied the petition, finding Bear failed to…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Orozco
Case #: D067313
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 05/24/2018

Defendant with Vehicle Code section 10851 conviction whose Proposition 47 petition was denied before People v. Page (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1175 was decided may file a new petition alleging information that demonstrates eligibility for relief. Orozco filed a Proposition 47 petition to have his felony convictions under Vehicle Code section 10851 and Penal Code section 496d reduced to misdemeanors. The superior court concluded he was ineligible for relief, finding that Proposition 47 did not apply to either offense. After the Court of Appeal affirmed, the Supreme Court directed the appellate court to reconsider the matter in light of…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Warren
Case #: F073159
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 06/21/2018

When a conviction is reclassified as a misdemeanor for all purposes pursuant to a Proposition 47 petition, it may not later be used to enhance a sentence under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). In 2015, Warren pleaded no contest to three felony offenses and received a sentence that included four one-year enhancements under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) for felony convictions that occurred in 1993, 1995, 2002, and 2012. Warren appealed, arguing that the court erroneously imposed a sentence enhancement for the 2012 conviction, which the trial court had reduced to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47 prior to…

View Full Summary