In 2012, Mr. Franco was arrested with a forged check made out in the amount of 1500 dollars. He pleaded guilty to forgery and was given a go at felony probation. Franco then violated his probation. In late November of 2014, as he stood before the trial court awaiting sentencing, Franco asked the court to reduce his forgery conviction to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47. The trial court denied Franco's request and sent him to prison. Franco appealed.
The Second District affirms.
This is an irritating opinion. And not because of the result (which may prove to be correct). The irritation derives from the fact that this case presents a question of statutory interpretation which the panel responds to by eschewing the cannons of statutory interpretation in favor of a frowsy and baseless conclusion.
The question is simple, but by no means easy to answer. When PC 473 states that a "forgery relating to a check . . . where the value of the check . . . does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars" is a misdemeanor, what does it mean by value? Does it mean market value (the amount someone will give you for it) intrinsic value (the value of the paper and ink), or face value (the dollar amount written on the check)?
A competent judicial analysis would start with examining the statutory language within the statutory scheme, giving the words their ordinary meanings, and determining whether the language is ambiguous. The panel skips (not just) this step and instead concludes without discussion or example that any interpretation other than face value would be absurd and is thus the correct interpretation.
There are many reasonable arguments, using the cannons of statutory interpretation, that support the panel's result. Why the panel was too faineant to mention them is head-scratching.
The question in this case is novel and deserves a quality published opinion. Unfortunately we will have to wait for one.
No comments:
Post a Comment