People v. Rendon

Filed 10/27/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ----

THE PEOPLE, C079831

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. P14CRF0617)

v.

JULLIAN RUTH RENDON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of El Dorado County, Dylan Sullivan, Judge. Reversed.

Jyoti Malik, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman and Eric L. Christoffersen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1

In this case, the trial court refused to reduce defendant Jillian Ruth Rendon’s felony conviction for forgery in violation of Penal Code1 section 476 to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47 because the court concluded that while the counterfeit bills she possessed had a face value of only $260, other material she also had in her possession -- security strips, Benjamin Franklin faces, and blank pre-cut paper money -- could have been used to make “tens of thousands of dollars” of counterfeit bills. We conclude the trial court erred because section 473 -- the statute that dictates the punishment for forgery -- specifies that where the offense relates to a bank bill or note, the offense is punishable as a misdemeanor “where the value of the . . . bank bill[ or] note . . . does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars ($950).” Material that could be used to make counterfeit bills has no bearing on the application of section 473, and blank pre-cut paper money has no face value. In applying section 473, only counterfeit bills that have a discernible face value are relevant to the valuation process. Here, defendant possessed counterfeit bills with only $260 in discernible value. In addition, we conclude the People are not entitled on remand to withdraw from the plea agreement that resulted in defendant’s forgery conviction just because that conviction may be reduced to a misdemeanor. Even assuming the right to withdraw from a plea agreement may be available when the reduction of a conviction under Proposition 47 deprives the People of the benefit of the agreement,2 the People here have not shown that the reduction of defendant’s forgery conviction will result in such a deprivation. Accordingly, unless the trial court makes a discretionary determination that defendant would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, the court must reduce her forgery conviction to a misdemeanor.