Are Theft by Forgery Convictions Over $950 Prop 47 Eligible?
These crimes allegedly occurred in Ventura County in early 2014. Hoffman was a nineteen year old heroin addict with a borderline personality disorder. She took a booklet of checks from her parents and, over the course of three months, wrote checks to herself and signed them with her parents’ signatures. The checks varied in value from $150 to $450 and totaled $8,734. The ATM withdrawal from her friend’s bank was $25.
Hoffman had no prior convictions and she was not a registered sex offender, which is relevant as it later made her eligible for resentencing under Proposition 47 once it was passed.The Reader’s Digest Version: Prop 47 can apply to reduce multiple felonies involving forgery to misdemeanors. The Ventura County Superior Court was reversed when it denied the Prop 47 petition after adding up all the forged checks to be over $950.
Through plea bargaining, she pled guilty to seven counts of felony forgery. The check amounts in the seven counts she pled guilty to were $325, $400, $280, $350, $325, $350 and $175. At the time of her plea, which was before Prop 47 became law, Penal Code § 470(d), forgery, was a “wobbler,” meaning a sentence for violating it could be punished as a felony or a misdemeanor. The remaining 13 counts were dismissed.
In June, 2014, the trial court sentenced her to formal felony probation with a suspended sentence of seven years, but also sentenced her to 180 days in county jail. One month later, she was released from county jail to a residential drug treatment program. Once there, she violated probation twice by using a controlled substance and was sentenced to another 60 days in jail. Once out of jail, she absconded from the residential treatment facility in October. She was caught again and ordered to serve another 120 days in county jail.
Hoffman then appealed the ruling to the Second Appellate District, which reversed the trial court. The appellate court reasoned that Penal Code § 473 does not employ “a total amount” approach. Each check is considered individually. Moreover, the appellate court recognized the trial court’s motivation to change Hoffman’s behavior, but opponents to Prop 47, before it was passed, expressed similar concerns. Voters, however, passed Proposition 47, so such issues were resolved, barring a judge’s use of discretion as the judge did in Hoffman’s case at the trial court. As the appellate court stated, a judge may not undertake to rewrite a law’s unambiguous provisions (People v. Goodliffe (2009) 177 Cal.App. 723, 726).
For more information about the issues in this case, please click on the following articles: