People v. Gonzales

• Decision Date: 27 August 2018
• Docket Number: S240044
• Citation: 6 Cal.5th 44,424 P.3d 280,237 Cal.Rptr.3d 193
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Craig Danny GONZALES, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Supreme Court

6 Cal.5th 44

424 P.3d 280

237 Cal.Rptr.3d 193

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.Craig Danny GONZALES, Defendant and Appellant.

S240044

Supreme Court of California.

Filed August 27, 2018

Elizabeth M. Campbell, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris and Xavier Becerra, Attorneys General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman, Raymond L. Brosterhous II, Eric L. Christoffersen, Rachelle A. Newcomb and Ivan P. Marrs, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

CUÉLLAR, J.

Forgery is a "wobbler" crime punishable either as a felony or a misdemeanor. ( Pen. Code, § 473, subd. (a).)¹ When voters enacted Proposition 47 in 2014, the Penal Code gained a new provision reducing punishment to a misdemeanor for "forgery relating to a check, bond, bank bill, note, cashier's check, traveler's check, or money order, where the value of the check, bond, bank bill, note, cashier's check, traveler's check, or money order does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars ($950)." ( § 473, subd. (b).) But forgery remains a wobbler — and therefore an offense ineligible for reclassification as a misdemeanor under Proposition 47 — for "any person who is convicted both of forgery and of identity theft, as defined in Section 530.5." (Ibid. ) In this case we decide what relationship, if any, must exist between a person's convictions for forgery and identity theft for the identity theft conviction to result in denial of the relief an individual could otherwise receive under Penal Code section 473, subdivision (b) (hereafter section 473(b) ).

In a single consolidated proceeding, defendant Craig Danny 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 California voters enacted Proposition 47, Gonzales petitioned the trial court to reduce his forgery convictions to misdemeanors under new procedures contained in section 473(b). The trial court denied his petition, but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that section 473(b) precludes relief only if an identity theft offense is "transactionally related" to a forgery conviction. ( People v. Gonzales (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1069, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 814 ( Gonzales ).)

We agree with the Court of Appeal's decision to reverse. The terms of section 473(b), the statute's overall structure, and the light these shed on the statute's purpose indicate that a connection between "both" the forgery and identity theft convictions must exist to disqualify an offender from resentencing. ( § 473(b).) To the extent the precise meaning of the statute's terms is somewhat ambiguous, the extrinsic evidence confirms the electorate's intended purpose in approving Proposition 47 was to require that the conduct related to the forgery and identity theft convictions must have been made "in connection with" each other to preclude Gonzales from resentencing. ( Gonzales , supra , 6 Cal.App.5th at p. 1073, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 814 italics omitted .)

Here, Gonzales's forgery convictions were based on conduct committed in 2003, and his identify theft conviction was based on conduct committed in 2006 and 2007. Because his offenses were entirely unrelated and therefore not subject to exclusion under section 473(b), we conclude that Gonzales is eligible for resentencing. We affirm the Court of Appeal and remand the matter back to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I.

On September 9, 2003, law enforcement officers conducted a search of a van in which Gonzales was a passenger. During the search, the officers located a wallet containing three counterfeit driver's licenses — each bearing a different name corresponding to Gonzales's photograph. Also found in the wallet were counterfeit currency and checks in the names corresponding to those other identities. Officers also discovered copies of receipts for purchased goods — some of which were purchased with checks corresponding to Gonzales's counterfeit licenses. In addition, the vehicle search revealed a pouch containing four bags of methamphetamine, a gram scale, clear plastic bags, and two pipes. A search of Gonzales's person uncovered another counterfeit driver's license bearing a fourth identity, which was also tied to certain checks used to make purchases of goods.

The identity theft task force investigated the matter and confirmed that Gonzales used counterfeit driver's licenses and checks to make purchases in July and September of 2003. On July 2, 2004, Gonzales was arrested and released on bail, but he failed to appear for his jury trial that was scheduled to begin on October 19, 2010. A bench warrant was issued for his arrest.

On November 1, 2005, law enforcement officers witnessed Gonzales walk from a motel parking lot into a room. Officers arrested him and conducted a search of the motel room, seizing a bag of methamphetamine, cash, paperwork, and various drug paraphernalia.

Between December 22, 2005, and June 12, 2006, AT&T opened several accounts in Sacramento County — later determined to be fraudulent — were opened through AT&T using the personal identifying information of six individuals. In the course of investigating these accounts, law enforcement officers uncovered a scheme in which Gonzales and his fellow inmate opened the fraudulent telephone accounts, enabling them to make free telephone calls from jail.

On April 12, 2006, a consolidated information was filed against Gonzales arising from the 2003 and 2005 incidents — the one arising from allegations involving forgery, theft, and drug charges stemming from the September 2003 search of Gonzales and the van (No. 03F07705); and the one (People v. Gonzales (Super. Ct. Sacramento County 2006, No. 05F09704) involving the two drug charges based on the November 2005 search of a hotel room connected with defendant. (See Gonzales , supra , 6 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1069-1070, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 814.) Gonzales was charged with a total of 13 offenses in the consolidated case.²

On July 13, 2007, while the consolidated matters in Nos. 03F07705 and 05F09704 were still pending, the district attorney filed a second information (People v. Gonzales (Super. Ct. Sacramento County, 2008, No. 06F11190) charging Gonzales with five new offenses, including identity theft, stemming from his jailhouse conspiracy to obtain unauthorized phone services in the names of various individuals.

In a negotiated plea deal, Gonzales admitted to all charges alleged in the consolidated information (Nos. 03F07705 and 05F09704) and pleaded no contest to one count of identity theft stemming from the 2007 case (No. 06F11190) in exchange for a total maximum sentence of 20 years. On February 29, 2008, in a single proceeding, the court denied probation and imposed a total term of 19 years eight months for all three cases, including 18 years four months for the 2003 (No. 03F07705) and 2005 (No. 05F09704) consolidated cases and a consecutive term of one year four months on the 2007 information (No. 06F11190).

A few years later, in the November 2014 election, California voters enacted Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. (§ 1170.18; see People v. Rivera (2015), 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1089, 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 362.) Proposition 47 downgrades several felonies and wobblers to misdemeanors and permits persons convicted of those felonies and wobblers serving felony sentences at the time the law took effect to have their offenses retroactively redesignated as misdemeanors under certain circumstances by filing a petition. (§ 1170.18, subds. (a), (f).)

Forgery is one of the offenses amended by Proposition 47. As a consequence of Proposition 47, forgery remains punishable as either a misdemeanor or a felony if the value of the instrument exceeds $950, or if the offender "is convicted both of forgery and of identity theft, as defined in Section 530.5." ( § 473, subds. (a), (b).)

On January 21, 2015, Gonzales filed a petition with the trial court requesting resentencing based on the enactment of Proposition 47. The trial court denied the request on March 13, 2015, by checking a box on a file form noting that the denial was based on the "[c]urrent conviction(s)." The court did not hold a hearing or take evidence in deciding the petition and offered no additional reasoning for its decision.

Gonzales appealed the trial court's decision, and the Court of Appeal reversed the order as to counts one and three through seven.³ The Court of Appeal thought it clear that the "convicted both of" language in section 473(b) applies only to the "identity theft that is committed in a transactionally related manner with the forgery of an instrument, and not where, as here, the identity theft occurred in an independent transaction that simply happened to be part of the same sentencing proceeding." ( Gonzales , supra , 6 Cal.App.5th at p. 1073, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 814.) The Court of Appeal held that Gonzales's 2006 identity theft conviction was not a proper basis for the trial court's denial order as to certain counts in the 2003 and 2005 cases. The Court of Appeal therefore reversed the trial court's order denying relief under section 1170.18 as to counts one and three to seven, and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings to determine defendant's eligibility for relief on the affected counts. ( Gonzales , at pp. 1073-1074, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 814.)

On February 15, 2017, we granted review on our own motion to resolve what relationship, if any, must exist between convictions for forgery and identity theft in order to exclude a forgery conviction from sentencing as a misdemeanor under section 473(b).

II.

The scope of section 473(b) is a question of law, so we review the Court of Appeal's interpretation of Proposition 47 de novo. ( Apple Inc. v. Superior Court (2013) ...