(Pen. Code, § 1170.18.) The People opposed, arguing the balance of the victim’s
checking account was greater than $950. The trial court found the value of the blank
checks to be de minimis and granted the petition.
The People contend the court erred by (i) reaching the merits because Vandiver
did not attach evidence of value to her petition and (ii) determining the checks’ value was
de minimis. They contend the court should have dismissed the petition as unsupported or
found the checks were worth the full amount in the linked checking account and denied
the petition on the merits. We affirm.
2
I
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On November 7, 2012, police found Vandiver in possession of 10 blank checks
belonging to another person (the victim).1 They arrested her and charged her with
receiving stolen property and violating probation.
The same day, the investigating officer contacted the victim, who reported “she
and her family had recently closed a Citibank account because of Fraud. She [said] they
had complained to the bank after not receiving the checks they ordered. When they went
to the bank to follow-up, the family learned that somebody had drawn nearly $3000
dollars from the account. [She] said [neither] she, nor her family gave anybody
permission to take or use the checks. [She] felt it was most likely the checks were taken
from their mailbox.”
Vandiver talked to police after waiving her Miranda rights.2 She told the police
she had recently been kicked out of an apartment and when she left she took items from
the person she was staying with, including the checks. “She said she knew it was wrong
to have the checks and she should have known better. She said she knew she had stolen
property but denied any knowledge of how [her former roommate] came to possess them.
1 We grant the People’s motion to augment the record with the police report and an affidavit submitted by the victim, both part of the record below. 2 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
3
She said she had not used any of the checks before.” A copy of one of the checks
attached to the police report shows it was blank and not endorsed.
The Riverside County District Attorney accused Vandiver of felony receiving
stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a);3 count 1) and having suffered a prison prior (§ 667.5,
subd. (b)).4 The complaint alleged “on or about November 7, 2012, in the County of
Riverside, State of California, she did wilfully and unlawfully receive certain property, to
wit, CHECKS, which said property had been obtained by theft, knowing said property
had been so obtained, and did conceal and withhold and aid in concealing and
withholding said property from the owner.” The complaint does not allege she made the
checks out for any amount, attempted to cash them, or attempted to pass them as payment
for goods or services.
On November 21, 2012, Vandiver pled guilty to felony receiving stolen property
and admitted the prison prior. At the plea hearing, the trial court asked, “Is it true that on
November 7, 2012 of this year, in the county of Riverside, you had somebody else’s
checks?” She replied, “Yes, sir.” The court found a factual basis for the plea and
accepted it.
The trial court sentenced Vandiver to a midterm of two years in county jail
(§ 1170, subd. (h)) on count 1 and an additional year (consecutive) for the enhancement.
3 Unlabeled statutory citations refer to the Penal Code. 4 The complaint included additional charges not relevant to the appeal.
4
The court suspended execution of the final 18 months of the sentence and ordered 18
months of supervised release.
On November 4, 2014, the voters of California passed Proposition 47, reducing
some felony theft-related offenses—including receiving stolen property—to
misdemeanors when the value of the stolen property does not exceed $950. The initiative
also created a procedure allowing offenders to petition to designate eligible felony
convictions misdemeanors and obtain resentencing if they “would have been guilty of a
misdemeanor under” the provisions added by Proposition 47. (§ 1170.18, subds. (a), (f).)
On August 3, 2015, Vandiver filed a petition asking the trial court to designate her
receiving stolen property conviction a misdemeanor under section 1170.18. The petition
declares “defendant believes the value of the check or property does not exceed $950.”
The prosecution responded Vandiver was not entitled to relief because the stolen checks
came from an account whose balance was greater than $950. The prosecution requested
a hearing limited to the value of the checks.
On February 26, 2016, the trial court held a hearing. The prosecution contended
“the value of the checks should be what is in the account” and submitted an affidavit
from the victim saying the account contained $3000 at the time the checks were stolen.
The trial court consulted its own records, which included the police report. The report
said the checks were blank, the victim had closed the associated account before
Vandiver’s arrest, and Vandiver said she had not used any of the victim’s checks. In
addition, the police report attached a copy of one of the victim’s checks showing it was
5
blank and unendorsed. The prosecutor conceded the checks were not written out and
there was no evidence Vandiver had used any checks to take money from the account.
The trial court found the checks were worth a de minimis amount and granted the
petition. It deemed count 1 a misdemeanor, and ordered the prison prior stricken.
On April 22, 2016, the People filed a notice of appeal.
II
DISCUSSION
A. Petitioner’s Burden
The People contend the trial court erred in granting the petition because
Vandiver’s “section 1170.18 petition failed to present any evidence regarding the
underlying facts of her section 496 conviction.” In effect, the People contend the trial
court abused its discretion by reaching the merits of the petition without first finding she
had made out a prima facie case of entitlement to resentencing.
We have concluded elsewhere section 1170.18 cannot be read to limit the trial
court’s discretion as the People propose. (People v. Abarca (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 475,
479, review granted Oct. 19, 2016, S237106.) The People present neither contrary
authority nor any other reason to conclude the trial court was required to summarily deny
the petition because Vandiver failed to attach evidence. The trial court acted within its
statutory discretion to consider evidence contained in court records and to set an
evidentiary hearing to establish the facts underlying the conviction. (People v. Huerta
challenged on appeal is presumed correct, and it is the appellant’s burden to affirmatively
demonstrate error’”].)
12
III
DISPOSITION
We affirm the order.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
SLOUGH J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST Acting P. J.
MILLER J.
13
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that blank, unendorsed checks have a de minimis fair market value for the purpose of determining eligibility for resentencing under Proposition 47, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering evidence from the record to determine that value.
Issues
Whether a trial court may consider evidence from the record to determine the value of stolen property in a Proposition 47 petition when the petitioner did not attach such evidence.
Whether the fair market value of blank, unendorsed checks is equivalent to the balance of the linked bank account.
Whether the trial court's finding that the value of the blank checks did not exceed $950 was supported by substantial evidence.
Disposition. Affirmed.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The trial court found the value of the blank checks to be de minimis and granted the petition.”
“The value to be placed upon stolen articles for the purpose of establishing a felony charge is the fair market value of the property and not the value of the property to any particular individual.”
“We conclude from these authorities that blank, unendorsed checks have a non-zero, de minimis value.”