People v. McNeal CA1/3

Filed 12/9/24 P. v. McNeal CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A169914 v. LINTON McNEAL, JR., (Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR305942) Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Linton McNeal, Jr. appeals the trial court’s order denying his Penal Code section 1203.4 petition to set aside his 2016 no contest plea to felony forgery of a loan modification agreement (Pen. Code, § 470, subd. (d)) and dismiss the underlying action.2 We agree with the parties that the trial court erred by denying the petition as McNeal met the statutory criteria for relief. Accordingly, we reverse.

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion, reciting only those

facts necessary to resolve the issue raised. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.) 2 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The following factual and procedural summary is taken from our prior unpublished opinion in People v. McNeal (July 24, 2020, A159113; McNeal) as to the events preceding that decision. “[D]efendant and the victim purchased a house as joint tenants and lived there together with their children until the victim moved out in 2011. In 2014, defendant forged the victim’s signature on loan modification documents. Criminal proceedings were initiated but defendant refused to sell the house to remove the victim’s name from the forged loan. He ultimately pled no contest to one count of felony forgery of a loan modification agreement ([§] 470, subd. (d)).” (McNeal, supra, A159113, fn. omitted.) “Thereafter, the parties agreed defendant would be allowed to withdraw his plea and the matter would be dismissed if he removed the victim’s name from the forged loan within six months. When defendant failed to do so, the trial court—consistent with the terms of the plea agreement—suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on five years of probation with the condition that he serve 180 days in county jail.” (McNeal, supra, A159113.) Critically for our purposes, McNeal was not required as a condition of probation to remove the victim’s name from the forged loan. The court subsequently ordered victim restitution in the amount of $12,708.27 for attorney fees and costs incurred in a civil partition action initiated by the victim to force a sale of the house, which was the only way to have her name removed from the loan given McNeal’s refusal to do so. (McNeal, supra, A159113.) In 2020, we affirmed that restitution order. (Ibid.)