People v. Alspaugh CA4/3

Opinion

Filed 8/17/26 P. v. Alspaugh CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G066098 v. (Super. Ct. No. 25CF0059)

LEAH CAROL ALSPAUGH, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kevin Haskins, Judge. Affirmed. Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Assistant Attorney General, Michael T. Murphy and James Spradley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Defendant Leah Carol Alspaugh challenges her felony conviction for recording a false or forged instrument, claiming it must be reduced to a misdemeanor because the verdict form mistakenly described the offense as a misdemeanor. Because the record plainly shows the jury intended to convict her of the charged felony offense, we affirm. FACTS The Orange County District Attorney charged Alspaugh with a felony count of offering or recording a false or forged instrument (Pen. Code1 § 115, subd. (a); count 1), and other offenses. In her opening statement at trial, Alspaugh told the jury that count 1 was a “felony.” In her closing statement, she again reminded the jury that the offense was a “felony.” The court instructed the jury on the elements of this offense under CALCRIM No. 1945, with no alternative theories or lesser included offenses. The verdict form given to the jury mistakenly stated the offense was “a misdemeanor violation of Section 115, [subdivision] (a).” (Italics added.) After the jury returned a guilty verdict on all counts, the prosecutor noted the discrepancy. The trial court found that this was a technical defect that made no difference: the verdict was “guilty” and a violation of section 115 was necessarily a felony. Treating the conviction as a felony, it sentenced Alspaugh to two years in prison on count 1. DISCUSSION The trial court correctly found that the jury convicted Alspaugh of a felony in count 1. Initially, it is unclear if Alspaugh is challenging the clerical error in the verdict form or the trial court’s treatment of her conviction as a felony. On one hand, she claims the jury might not have 1 All statutory references are to this code.

2 convicted her but for the clerical error. On the other hand, she does not ask that we reverse her conviction outright, only that we reduce it to a misdemeanor. Either way, we find no prejudicial error. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13 [court may not set judgment aside unless “the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice”].) First, to the extent Alspaugh claims the jury found her guilty only because it believed the offense was a misdemeanor, she forfeited the contention by failing to object to the verdict form before the jury was discharged. (People v. Johnson (2015) 61 Cal.4th 734, 784.) Regardless, nothing suggests the jury was swayed by a belief that the offense was a misdemeanor. Alspaugh herself twice informed the jury that the offense was a felony. More importantly, the classification of the offense as a felony was legally irrelevant to the jury’s decision. (See People v. Burres (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 341, 356 [“Whether appellant was guilty of a misdemeanor or a felony was not a question for the jury”].) The jury was properly instructed on the elements of the offense and was not instructed on any misdemeanor analog. We presume it followed the court’s instructions when it found Alspaugh guilty. (People v. Chhoun (2021) 11 Cal.5th 1, 30 [jury presumed to follow court’s instructions].) Second, the clerical error in the verdict form did not require the court to treat Alspaugh’s conviction as a misdemeanor. Again, it was not for the jury to decide if the offense was a felony or misdemeanor. (People v. Burres, supra, 101 Cal.App.3d at p. 356.) And a violation of section 115, subdivision (a), is a felony. (§ 115, subd. (a) [every person who satisfies elements of this offense “is guilty of a felony”].) The verdict form shows that the jury intended to find Alspaugh guilty of offering or recording a false or forged instrument under section 115, subdivision (a). Thus, the trial court 3 properly disregarded the clerical error in the form. (See People v. Jackson (2014) 58 Cal.4th 724, 750 [“‘[T]he form of the verdict generally is immaterial, so long as the intention of the jury to convict clearly may be seen’”].) DISCUSSION The judgment is affirmed.

SCOTT, J.

WE CONCUR:

GOODING, ACTING P. J.

SERVINO, J.