People v. Ryan
Decision Date | 05 April 2006 |
Docket Number | No. F047368.,F047368. |
Citation | 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 277,138 Cal.App.4th 360 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Teresa Lynn RYAN, Defendant and Appellant. |
Appellant Teresa Lynn Ryan stands convicted, following a jury trial, of burglary (Pen.Code,1 § 459; counts I-III); receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a); count IV); forgery by signing another's name (§ 470, subd. (a); counts V-VI); forgery by making or passing a forged check (id., subd. (d); counts VII-VIII); forgery by possessing a blank or unfinished check (§ 475, subd. (b); count IX); unauthorized use of personal identifying information (§ 530.5, subd. (a); count XI); and fraudulent use of an access card (§ 484g, subd. (a); count XII), a misdemeanor. In addition, she admitted having served four prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Sentenced to a total unstayed term of 12 years 4 months in prison and ordered to pay various fines and penalty assessments, she now appeals. For the reasons that follow, we will vacate the convictions on counts V and VI and remand the matter for modification of portions of the sentence.
On September 21, 2004, appellant and Moriah Valencia entered three antique stores in Jamestown and stole purses and other items belonging to store personnel.2 Generally speaking, appellant distracted the victim by asking to see something in the store, while Valencia absconded with the loot. Appellant then used or attempted to use some of the stolen checks, debit cards, credit cards, and identifications. Goods purchased with these items, together with other purloined belongings, were found in a vehicle associated with the two women. In defense, appellant admitted entering stores and asking about items that interested her, but claimed she was uninvolved in, and unaware of, Valencia's theft-related activities.
In counts V and VI, appellant was convicted of forgery in violation of subdivision (a) of section 470. In counts VII and VIII, she was convicted of forgery in violation of subdivision (d) of that statute. Counts V and VII were based on her conduct of signing Cynthia Carter's name to a check and using it to make a purchase at Staples, while counts VI and VIII were based on her conduct of signing Carter's name to a check and attempting to use it to make a purchase at Gypsy Rose Antiques. Appellant now says she could not properly be convicted of counts V and VI because forgery in violation of section 470, subdivision (a) is a lesser included offense of forgery in violation of section 470, subdivision (d). We reach the result urged by appellant, but by way of different reasoning.
It has long been settled in this state that multiple convictions may not be based on necessarily included offenses. (People v. Ortega (1998) 19 Cal.4th 686, 692, 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 489, 968 P.2d 48.) (People v. Pearson (1986) 42 Cal.3d 351, 355, 228 Cal.Rptr. 509, 721 P.2d 595.)
In our view, the various subdivisions of section 470 do not set out greater and lesser included offenses, but different ways of committing a single offense, i.e., forgery. As originally enacted, section 470 contained no subdivisions. Even from 1990 to 1998, when the statute was divided into subdivisions (a) and (b), the various acts that constituted forgery were amassed in an undifferentiated, confusing recitation.5
Former section 470 was repealed in 1998, and a new section 470 was enacted wherein the various acts constituting forgery were set out, to a certain degree, in different subdivisions. (Stats.1998, ch. 468, §§ 1-2, pp. 2704-2705.)6 Thus, as enacted in 1998 and as it existed when appellant committed the offenses at issue here, section 470 provided:
The overhaul of section 470 and related provisions was intended to "`make [the] laws governing financial crimes more "user friendly"'" and "`to clarify and streamline existing law with regard to forgery and credit card fraud.'" It was not intended to "change the meaning or legal significance of the law," but "`merely [to] organize[] the relevant code sections into a cohesive and succinct set of laws that can be readily referred to and understood.'" (Assem. Com. on Public Safety, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 2008 (1997-1998 Reg. Sess.) as introduced Feb. 18, 1998, p. 2)
In construing former section 470, courts consistently held that there was but one crime of forgery, and that the various acts proscribed by the statute were simply different means of committing that offense. For instance, in People v. Frank (1865) 28 Cal. 507, 513, the California Supreme Court stated: (Accord, People v. Leyshon (1895) 108 Cal. 440, 442-443, 41 P. 480; People v. Harrold (1890) 84 Cal. 567, 568-569, 24 P. 106; People v. Luizzi (1960) 187 Cal.App.2d 639, 644, 9 Cal.Rptr. 842; People v. Keene (1954) 128 Cal. App.2d 520, 526-527, 275 P.2d 804.) In People v. McKenna (1938) 11 Cal.2d 327, 332, 79 P.2d 1065, the high court stated: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Otubuah
...doing negated the Bowie court's distinction that possession of checks was not forgery, we disagree. In People v. Ryan (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 360, 363-371, 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 277 ( Ryan ), the Fifth District examined the effect of the 1998 recodification on section 470. The Ryan court concluded ......
-
People v. Salmorin
...and forging of two separate instruments, although done at the same time, are separate and distinct offenses”]; People v. Ryan (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 360, 371, 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 277 [“the commission of any one or more of the acts enumerated in section 470, in reference to the same instrument , ......
-
People v. Muhammad
...and multiple convictions can be based on a single criminal act, if the charges allege separate offenses. (People v. Ryan (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 360, 368, 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 277.) In resolving this dispute, we find People v. Kelley (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 568, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 653 instructive. In Ke......
-
People v. Vital
...(2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 209, 217-218 [defendant improperly convicted of three counts of murder for killing one person]; People v. Ryan (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 360, 364-371 [defendant improperly conviction of more than one offense of forgery with respect to a single instrument because various ......