People v. Clotfelter
| Decision Date | 04 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | A155134 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRUCE LEE CLOTFELTER, Defendant and Appellant. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Napa County Super. Ct. No. CR182578)
Defendant was adjudicated a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP). That status burdened defendant with numerous statutory disabilities that he wished to evade by changing his name. His attempt to do so came to the attention of state and federal authorities, and resulted in criminal charges. A jury convicted him of one count of perjury (Pen. Code, § 1181); two counts of identity theft—technically the unauthorized use of personal identifying information of another person—(§ 530, subd. (a)); two counts of document forgery with intent to defraud (§ 470, subd. (d)); and seven counts of grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a)). The jury also found true allegations that defendant had three prior sex-offense "strike" convictions. The trial court denied defendant's motion to strike one or more of the previous conviction findingspursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero), and sentenced him to state prison for an aggregate term of 300 years to life.
On this timely appeal, defendant contends: (1) in accordance with In re Williamson (1954) 43 Cal.2d 651, his perjury and grand theft convictions must be invalidated because he could only be convicted under more specific misdemeanor statutes; (2) his grand theft convictions are not supported by substantial evidence; (3) only one grand theft conviction was proper because there was only a single continuous offense; (4) there were two instances of prejudicial instructional error; (5) the trial court abused its discretion in denying his Romero motion; (6) section 654 precludes separate sentences for forgery and identity theft; and (7) the aggregate sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under both the federal and the state constitutions.
With respect to the seven theft convictions, we conclude that defendant could be convicted of no more than four counts, but all the convictions must be reversed because the jury was not instructed on theft by false pretenses, the particular form of the crime advanced at trial. The convictions for perjury, identity theft, and forgery will be affirmed, but two of the sentences must be stayed pursuant to section 654. Because we remand for possible retrial of the theft charges, and resentencing, we do not address the cruel and unusual punishment claim.
The evidence heard by the jury is virtually without dispute, making it necessary only to summarize it here, viewed most favorably in support of the verdicts (People v. Nelson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 198, 210), as follows:
In 1989 defendant was convicted of three counts of committing lewd or lascivious acts upon a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)). In 1997, hewas adjudicated an SVP, and civilly committed to a state hospital for treatment. He was released in June 2007 and settled in Napa County. As required by law, he registered as a sex offender with local law enforcement.
Defendant also applied for SSI benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA), which was approved under his own name. He began receiving monthly payments in February 2008 (but backdated to November of 2007). Defendant was repeatedly told that he must report all sources of income; that benefits could terminate if his income rose above $2,000 a month; and that there would be periodic "redetermination" interviews to confirm his eligibility for continued benefits.
About this time, defendant decided to change his name. In January 2008, he petitioned the Napa Superior Court to change his name to "Andrew Bruce Vail." That petition was denied. In January of 2009, he filed another petition, this time asking to change his legal name to the one he used for writing, "Dalton Bruce Vail." This petition was also denied.
Desperate to escape his criminal past, defendant then resolved to simply rename himself:
Defendant already had a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA), the equivalent of a birth certificate for an American citizen born in another county (in defendant's case, Mexico), issued by the U.S. Department of State. Defendant wrote to that agency asking how to amend his CRBA to his new, self-bestowed name. He was told he had to prove he had been using the new name for at least five years.
Because defendant was told he had to have a passport before it could be amended with a different name, defendant applied for a passport in his own name. He received it in March 2010.
In June of that year, defendant submitted an application to the SSA to have his benefits paid under the name of Dalton Bruce Vail. To an SSA employee defendant "submitted a court-ordered name change document" (defendant called it a "document that I had created that was entitled Affidavit for Common Law Name Change"). Based on this bogus document, SSA accepted defendant's application.
The same thing occurred several months later, allowing defendant to obtain an amended CRBA in the name of Dalton B. Vail from the Department of State.
Among the "doctored" documents defendant admitted submitting was a "contribution statement" from the Grace Church he attended in Napa. This document, which was dated January 14, 2005, purported to show that in 2004 (while he was actually in Atascadero State Hospital) Dalton Vail made specified donations to the church.
Another document created by defendant that was submitted with the amended CRBA application was a UPS invoice dated May 15, 2005, purporting to record that Dalton Vail of "Vail Enterprises" paid $11.05 to ship an item from himself to himself in Napa from Orange County.
Defendant used the amended CRBA to apply for his California Driver's License to show the name Dalton Vail instead of Bruce Clotfelter. Months later, using the name Dalton Vail, defendant applied for a different type of operator's license; on the application defendant answered "No" to the question: "[H]ave you applied for a driver's license or identification card inCalifornia or another state/county using a different name or number within the past 10 years?"
In October of 2016, during an "annual sweep" of sex offenders' residences, Napa police discovered in defendant's house copies of checks totaling approximately $30,000, a Mexican passport in the name of Bruce Clotfelter, and a U.S. passport in the name of Bruce Vail. This discovery was communicated to the SSA and the Department of State.2 Pursuant to a warrant, Napa police seized defendant's computer. On it were discovered some of the altered documents defendant had submitted to the SSA and the Department of State. The UPS invoice and the Grace Church documents attracted particular attention because defendant was committed to a state hospital as an SVP at the time they were purportedly dated.
In January 2017, the SSA discovered that defendant had failed to report, as required, the existence of three bank accounts. That month SSA Special Agent Donald Kayl and Napa Police Sergeant Amy Hunter interviewed defendant when he came in for a scheduled meeting. It was a very long meeting. After initially denying he had done anything improper, defendant admitted the machinations to get the documents in the name of Dalton Vail. He also admitted lying to the SSA about his income. Defendant detailed how he had created the contribution from Grace Church and admitted being "really good" at "doctoring" or "changing documents." Defendant acknowledged that this "doctoring" was illegal.
When this interview was concluded, defendant then went to the Napa Police Department, where Hunter interviewed him for 90 minutes. The interview was recorded on videotape, and the tape was played for the jury.According to Sergeant Hunter, defendant "admitted multiple times throughout the interviews" to forging documents and taking money from the SSA to which he was not entitled.
Defendant began his testimony by admitting his five felony convictions, and the fact that he was an SVP who spent 10 years in state hospitals. He admitted creating and altering documents to escape his criminal history. But he did not change his name to "hide from the police" or avoid the sex offender registration requirements. The name change was not intended to "confuse" anyone.
Defendant did not think getting money from the SSA was wrong. He did not consider it stealing because he was "entitled" to it. He used the money to pay his living expenses, and the expenses of "Vail Enterprises," his handyman business. It was not uncommon for defendant to have more than $2,000 in his bank account, but this was his parents' money that he was "managing." He evaded the SSA limit by having his mother empty his bank account at the start of each month and "give it to me so that won't be a problem." He did not think his "Vail Enterprises" accounts mattered because "those were not listed as my resources." The $30,000 in checks were to compensate him for a traffic accident; he didn't report it to the SSA because "it wasn't income," and thus was not taxable.
Defendant's contentions range across various issues and various of the charges found true by the jury. Some of his arguments concern only sentencing. To simplify matters, we have grouped issues not involving sentencing by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial