People v. Henderson
Before: Kingsley
Opinion
KINGSLEY, Acting P. J.
Defendant was charged with a violation of section 72 of the Penal Code, which provides a potential felony penalty for presenting a false claim to any public officer.
1
The evidence at her prelimi
[506]
nary examination showed that she was eligible for, and was receiving, public assistance under the program for Aid to Families with Dependent Children. She falsely represented to her case worker and to the county auditor that a county warrant for $74 had either been lost or stolen. On the basis of those representations, a duplicate warrant was issued to her. She cashed both the original and the duplicate warrant. On a motion made under section 995 of the Penal Code,
2
the information was dismissed on the theory that she was liable to prosecution only under section 11482 of the Welfare and Institutions Code (a misdemeanor).
3
From that order, the People have appealed pursuant to subdivision 1 of section 1238 of the Penal Code. We affirm the order.
Earlier cases have determined that a person who wrongfully and fraudulently represents his status in order to obtain aid under the various provisions of the Welfare and Institutions Code, must be prosecuted under the misdemeanor section of that code and not under the general provisions of the Penal Code.
(People
v.
Gilbert
(1969) 1 Cal.3d 475 [82 Cal.Rptr. 724, 462 P.2d 580];
People
v.
Silk
(1955) 138 Cal.App.2d Supp. 899 [291 P.2d 1013].) The People argue that those cases are not here applicable because defendant did not misrepresent her eligibility for aid, but misrepresented the fact of its nonreceipt. We cannot see that this difference is here material. The representation here made was one which, under the applicable regulations cited to us in respondent’s brief, is part of a formal system concerning “lost” checks. Under the regulations, a welfare recipient who claims that her check has been lost or stolen, reports that fact to her welfare case worker; the worker assists her in preparing her claim, on a welfare department form, and arranges an introduction for the claimant to the county auditor. The regulations also provide, expressly, for the procedure to be used by the case worker if fraud or misrepresentation is suspected.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)