In People v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court today again interprets Proposition 47, the much-litigated 2014 initiative that reduces punishment and allows resentencing for certain crimes. The court’s opinion by Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar holds the legislation allows a felony forgery conviction (involving less than $950) to be reduced to a misdemeanor even if the defendant was also convicted of identity theft and even though Proposition 47 generally precludes a reduction for someone convicted of both forgery and identity theft. The caveat is that “a connection between ‘both’ the forgery and identity theft convictions must exist to disqualify an offender from resentencing.” In the case before it, the defendant qualifies for possible resentencing because his identity theft came years after his forgeries, despite having been concurrently convicted for all the crimes.
The court’s opinion is signed by six justices. Justice Carol Corrigan separately concurs (and is joined by Justice Ming Chin) to express her concern with the majority making the test whether there is a “connection” between the forgery and the identity theft, because “connection” is not in the statute but was used by the Legislative Analyst in summarizing the initiative. She also warns, “Initiative drafters should be mindful of the need for clarity and not assume that the courts will reach beyond what they present for voter approval by adopting clarifying language from another source.” That plea for clarity is particularly apt in a Proposition 47 case, given how much time the court has spent — and continues to spend — straightening out that initiative.
The court affirms the Third District Court of Appeal. It granted review on its own motion. This isn’t the first time the Attorney General lost in the Supreme Court without even asking the court to review an adverse Court of Appeal decision.