P v. Rendon (3rd Dist) For Purposes of PC 476, the Value of Forgery Raw Materials Are Immaterial

Early in 2014, Ms. Rendon was pulled over and her backpack searched.  Inside her backpack were two counterfeit 100 dollar bills and three counterfeit 20 dollar bills.  Also in the backpack were 200 "security strips" (the plastic strips woven into 100 bills), a couple dozen Benjamin Franklin image templates, and a wad of paper.  For this, Redon was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, felony forgery, PC 476. 

Later in 2014, after the November election, Rendon petitioned the trial court to reduce her 476 conviction to a misdemeanor under PC 1170.18.  The trial court denied the petition because it found that while the forged bills were worth 230 dollars, the raw materials in the backpack were sufficient to make more than 950 dollars in forged bills, exceeding the 950 dollar misdemeanor/felony threshold.  Rendon appealed.

The Third District reverses.

The panel disposes of the State's first argument by a simple statutory analysis.  Section 476 criminalizes the possession of any fictitious bill or note, not blank paper, security strips, or templates.  Because the sum of the fictitious bills in the backpack were 230 dollars, well below the 950 dollar threshold, Rendon's forgery conviction is eligible for relief.

The State then trots out the moth-ridden "benefit of the bargain" argument, asserting that they should be able to rescind the plea agreement if Rendon's petition is granted.  This argument is premised on a 1978 case, P v. Collins.   Admirably, the panel conducts a close reading of Collins and concludes that it doesn't really support the State's position, as Collins is premised on the principle that a defendant should not be able to avoid the possibility of incarceration by taking advantage of a subsequent change in the law that renders his crime of conviction, pursuant to a plea agreement, no longer criminal.

This is not the case here (nor in any 1170.18 case) and the argument is properly rejected.