Filed 1/3/23 P. v. Washington CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
THE PEOPLE, B320404
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. SA015216)
v.
RODERICK WASHINGTON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County. Christopher W. Dybwad, Judge. Affirmed.
Roderick Washington in pro. per.; Richard B. Lennon,
under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
____________________________________________
BACKGROUND
Appellant Roderick Washington appeals from an order
denying his April 25, 2022, motion seeking post-conviction
relief under Proposition 47. He was convicted following a no
contest plea to a charge of felony possession of a completed
check with intent to defraud, a forgery offense codified in
Penal Code section 475.1 In his motion, appellant asked that
his felony conviction be reduced to a misdemeanor because
the check underlying his conviction was never cashed or
otherwise used. The superior court denied the motion,
concluding that it could not grant the requested relief
because the amount of the fraudulent check exceeded $950.
Appellant timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief
raising no issues. After receiving the record and a copy of
counsel’s brief, appellant filed a supplemental brief
reiterating his contention that he is eligible for relief under
Proposition 47 because the check underlying his conviction
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
was never cashed or otherwise used. The filing of this
supplemental brief compels this court to “evaluate the
specific argument[] presented in that brief” but “does not
compel an independent review of the entire record to identify
unraised issues.” (People v. Delgadillo (Dec. 19, 2022,
S266305) ___ Cal.5th ___ [2022 Cal.LEXIS 7654, at *21].)
Enacted in 2014, Proposition 47 reduced to
misdemeanors certain drug- and theft-related offenses that
had previously been designated either felonies or wobblers,
which are crimes that can be punished as either felonies or
misdemeanors. (People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th
1085, 1091.) As relevant here, Proposition 47 amended
section 473 to provide that, absent certain exceptions, a
forgery relating to a check shall be punished as a
misdemeanor if “the value of the check . . . does not exceed
nine hundred fifty dollars ($950) . . . .”2 (§ 473, subd. (b).)
Proposition 47 “also added . . . section 1170.18, which
permits those previously convicted of felony offenses that
Proposition 47 reduced to misdemeanors to petition to have
such felony convictions resentenced or redesignated as
misdemeanors.” (People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 870-
871, fn. omitted.)
2 Section 473 provides the penalty applicable to the offense of
possession of a completed check with intent to defraud in section
475, subd. (c). (Levenson & Ricciardulli, Cal. Criminal Law (The
Rutter Group 2022) § 8:71 [violations of § 475 are punishable in
accordance with § 473].)
3
Here, it is undisputed that the face value of the check
underlying appellant’s conviction was $33,000. For purposes
of determining if a forged check exceeds the $950 threshold
of Proposition 47, its “value” is the amount written on its
face, irrespective of the amount of loss or detriment it
actually caused, if any. (People v. Franco (2018) 6 Cal.5th
433, 438-439 [“the gravamen of forgery is intent to defraud,
not actual injury”].) Accordingly, the superior court correctly
determined it could not grant the requested relief under
section 1170.18.3
3 We deny appellant’s motion to augment the record on
appeal, as appellant intends the additional materials to show
that he caused no loss to the victim, a matter irrelevant to
appellant’s eligibility for relief. (See Holland v. Jones (2012) 210
Cal.App.4th 378, 382, fn. 1 [denying augmentation with
irrelevant documents].)
4
DISPOSITION
The superior court’s order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
SCADUTO, J. *
We concur:
COLLINS, Acting P.J.
CURREY, J.
* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the
Chief Justice pursuant to Article VI, section 6, of the California
Constitution.
5