California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
from the Superior Court of Riverside County, No. RIF1314012,
Becky Dugan, Judge.
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
L. Harris, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant
Attorney General, Scott C. Taylor and Daniel Hilton, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
by Miller, J., with Hollenhorst, Acting P. J., and Slough,
Cal.Rptr.3d 644] MILLER, J.
trial court denied the Proposition 47 petition for
resentencing of defendant and appellant James Carl Mutter.
(Pen. Code, § 1170.18.) Defendant contends the
trial court erred because the crime for which he sought
resentencing--possession or receipt of counterfeit currency
(§ 475, subd. (a))--is a misdemeanor after the passage
of Proposition 47. The denial of the petition is reversed.
Cal.Rptr.3d 645] FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL
was charged with two offenses, both alleged to have occurred
on or about November 30, 2013: (1) forgery, in that defendant
willfully and unlawfully possessed or received a counterfeit
item with the intent to pass the item, knowing it to be
counterfeit (Pen. Code, § 475, subd. (a)) and (2)
possession of heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 1350, subd.
(a)). The information did not identify the counterfeit item
or its value. Two prison priors were also alleged against
defendant. (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).)
January 16, 2015, defendant pled guilty to the forgery count
(§ 475, subd. (a)). The trial court imposed a 16-month
sentence, with four months to be served at the county jail
and 12 months of mandatory supervision. At the plea hearing
defendant admitted he had " some counterfeit bills and
tried to pass them." The amount of the counterfeit bills
was not given at the hearing. Defendant's plea form
reflects the item was counterfeit bills, but does not include
the amount of the counterfeit bills.
April 6, 2015, the Riverside County Probation Department
moved the trial court to transfer defendant's mandatory
supervision to Orange County because defendant was residing
in Orange County. The motion to transfer probation was
combined with a Proposition 47 hearing. Defendant did not
file a Proposition 47 petition, but did file a memorandum of
points and authorities explaining why possession or receipt
of counterfeit bills is now a misdemeanor under Proposition
47. Presumably, defendant did not file a Proposition 47
petition because there was a suggestion that defendant's
probation might not need to be transferred because defendant
could qualify for Proposition 47 relief, thus freeing him
from mandatory supervision.
defendant's points and authorities, he argued Proposition
47 altered section 473, which sets forth the punishment for a
variety of forgery offenses, including section 475,
subdivision (a), which is the offense for which defendant was
convicted. Defendant argued that although Proposition 47 did
not directly alter section 475, subdivision (a), it altered
the relevant punishment statute (§ 473) by reducing
forgery related to a " bank bill" to a misdemeanor.
Defendant asserted currency (§ 475, subd. ...