## Facts

- Ruth Michiel owned two houses and faced financial distress and possible foreclosure.
- Paul Stephen Martinez offered to help her refinance or avoid foreclosure and directed her to sign a stack of documents.
- Michiel and Martinez’s former girlfriend testified Martinez represented the documents were needed to file bankruptcy and save Michiel’s homes, and reassured her she would not lose her property.
- One document was a deed of trust recorded against Michiel’s Greenwood Place property, purporting to secure a $25,000 debt owed to Martinez.
- Michiel acknowledged the signature on the trust deed was hers but denied knowingly signing a trust deed granting Martinez a secured interest.
- The notary whose name and seal appeared on the trust deed denied notarizing it; evidence indicated Martinez had access to notary stamps.
- Michiel discovered the recorded trust deed when she later tried to sell property; Martinez conceded she did not owe him money and claimed not to know how he obtained the trust deed.
- A jury convicted Martinez of forgery-related offenses, including two separate forgery counts under Penal Code § 470(d) based on different signatures on the same trust deed; the trial court placed him on probation.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported a Penal Code § 470(d) forgery conviction based on Michiel’s signature where the signature was physically genuine but allegedly procured through deception about the document’s character and effect.
2. Whether Penal Code § 470(d) permits separate forgery convictions for falsifying multiple signatures on a single instrument (the victim’s signature and the notary’s signature/seal on one trust deed).

## Decision

- The court held substantial evidence supported a finding that Martinez procured Michiel’s signature by misrepresenting the character and effect of the document, supporting a forgery theory despite a physically genuine signature.
- The court further held that, even absent affirmative misrepresentations, forgery liability may attach where the instrument executed is materially different in character or legal effect from what the signer intended, and the defendant acted with intent to defraud.
- The court held Penal Code § 470(d) authorizes one forgery count per falsified instrument, not one count per falsified signature within the same instrument.
- The court vacated the duplicative § 470(d) conviction (the count predicated on Michiel’s signature) because another § 470(d) count already punished forgery of the notary’s signature on the same trust deed.
- As modified, the judgment and probation order were affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- A forgery conviction under Penal Code § 470(d) can be supported where a person’s genuine signature is obtained through deception that causes execution of an instrument different in character or legal effect from what the signer understood, if the defendant acted with intent to defraud.
- Evidence that a defendant presented documents as serving a benign purpose (e.g., bankruptcy assistance) while concealing that a document granted the defendant a secured interest can support an inference of deception sufficient for forgery.
- The unit of prosecution under Penal Code § 470(d) is the falsified instrument; multiple false signatures or falsified elements within a single document ordinarily constitute a single forgery offense under that subdivision.
- When two § 470(d) counts are based on different falsifications within the same instrument, one conviction must be vacated to avoid impermissible multiple convictions for the same forgery.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that forgery may be established even when a signature is physically genuine if it was procured through deception as to the document’s character or legal effect, but Penal Code § 470(d) generally permits only one forgery conviction per falsified instrument, requiring vacatur of duplicative counts based on multiple signatures on the same document.


People v. Martinez, 161 Cal. App. 4th 754, 74 Cal. Rptr. 3d 409 (Ct. App. 2008)