Cal. Codes » Penal Code

Cal. Penal Code § 476a

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Any person who, for himself or herself, as the agent or representative of another, or as an officer of a corporation, willfully, with intent to defraud, makes or draws or utters or delivers a check, draft, or order upon a bank or depositary, a person, a firm, or a corporation, for the payment of money, knowing at the time of that making, drawing, uttering, or delivering that the maker or drawer or the corporation has not sufficient funds in, or credit with the bank or depositary, person, firm, or corporation, for the payment of that check, draft, or order and all other checks, drafts, or orders upon funds then outstanding, in full upon its presentation, although no express representation is made with reference thereto, is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.

(b)However, if the total amount of all checks, drafts, or orders that the defendant is charged with and convicted of making, drawing, or uttering does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars ($950), the offense is punishable only by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, except that such person may instead be punished pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 if that person has one or more prior convictions for an offense specified in clause (iv) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 667 or for an offense requiring registration pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 290. This subdivision shall not be applicable if the defendant has previously been convicted of three or more violations of Section 470, 475, or 476, or of this section, or of the crime of petty theft in a case in which defendant’s offense was a violation also of Section 470, 475, or 476 or of this section or if the defendant has previously been convicted of any offense under the laws of any other state or of the United States which, if committed in this state, would have been punishable as a violation of Section 470, 475 or 476 or of this section or if he has been so convicted of the crime of petty theft in a case in which, if defendant’s offense had been committed in this state, it would have been a violation also of Section 470, 475, or 476, or of this section.

(c)Where the check, draft, or order is protested on the ground of insufficiency of funds or credit, the notice of protest shall be admissible as proof of presentation, nonpayment, and protest and shall be presumptive evidence of knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit with the bank or depositary, person, firm, or corporation.

(d)In any prosecution under this section involving two or more checks, drafts, or orders, it shall constitute prima facie evidence of the identity of the drawer of a check, draft, or order if both of the following occur:

(1)When the payee accepts the check, draft, or order from the drawer, he or she obtains from the drawer the following information: name and residence of the drawer, business or mailing address, either a valid driver’s license number or Department of Motor Vehicles identification card number, and the drawer’s home or work phone number or place of employment. That information may be recorded on the check, draft, or order itself or may be retained on file by the payee and referred to on the check, draft, or order by identifying number or other similar means.

(2)The person receiving the check, draft, or order witnesses the drawer’s signature or endorsement, and, as evidence of that, initials the check, draft, or order at the time of receipt.

(e)The word “credit” as used herein shall be construed to mean an arrangement or understanding with the bank or depositary, person, firm, or corporation for the payment of a check, draft, or order.

(f)If any of the preceding paragraphs, or parts thereof, shall be found unconstitutional or invalid, the remainder of this section shall not thereby be invalidated, but shall remain in full force and effect.

(g)A sheriff’s department, police department, or other law enforcement agency may collect a fee from the defendant for investigation, collection, and processing of checks referred to their agency for investigation of alleged violations of this section or Section 476.

(h)The amount of the fee shall not exceed twenty-five dollars ($25) for each bad check, in addition to the amount of any bank charges incurred by the victim as a result of the alleged offense. If the sheriff’s department, police department, or other law enforcement agency collects a fee for bank charges incurred by the victim pursuant to this section, that fee shall be paid to the victim for any bank fees the victim may have been assessed. In no event shall reimbursement of the bank charge to the victim pursuant to this section exceed ten dollars ($10) per check.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 119 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1948–2022 · leading case: Schwarm v. Craighead
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Schwarm v. Craighead (2008) caed · cites it 4× “In its first letter, DATS informed the debtor that a complaint had been submitted accusing the debtor of a violation of California Penal Code section 476a and that the only way “[t]o suspend this criminal investigation” was to submit information or pay the debt.”
Breazeale v. Victim Services, Inc. (2016) cand · cites it 4× “The scheme further provides that if a district attorney decides there is probable cause to believe a suspect has violated California Penal Code section 476a (which makes it a crime to write a bad check with the intent to defraud), the district attorney may refer the suspect to…”
Kevin Breazeale v. Victim Services, Inc. (2017) ca9 · cites it 2× “See Cal. Penal Code § 476a (added in 1907). And while the enactment of this proscription addressed the problem of bad check writing, California began to face a problem of overload: prosecutions of accused bad check writers eventually “inundat[ed] the state’s criminal courts.”
People v. Beagle (1972) cal · cites it 3× “A prior conviction of having issued a check without sufficient funds (Pen. Code, § 476a) was charged and admitted but the judgment reflects no disposition of the allegation.”
People v. Nasalga (1996) cal · cites it 2× “2d 962 ], which involved an increase from $50 to $100 in the amount necessary to elevate issuing an insufficient funds check (Pen. Code, § 476a) from a misdemeanor to a felony.”
People v. DeHoyos (2018) cal “The redefined offenses include: shoplifting of property worth $950 or less ( Pen. Code, § 459.5, subd.”
People v. Pedro T. (1994) cal · cites it 2× “2d 262 ] [Pen. Code, § 476a, subd. (b), "not sufficient funds" checks]; In re Kirk (1965) 63 Cal.”
Huddleston v. United States (1974) scotus · cites it 2× “" [3] Cal. Penal Code § 476a (1970). The California complaint against Huddleston was in six counts and contained an allegation that he had been convicted previously in the State of Iowa of an offense which, if committed in California, would have been a violation of § 476 of the…”
People v. Gamble (2008) calctapp · cites it 2× “Defendant was convicted by plea of one count of malting an insufficient funds check (Pen. Code, § 476a, subd. (a)), three counts of commercial burglary (Pen.”
People v. Maki (1985) cal · cites it 2× “In 1981, following a negotiated plea to two counts of fraudulently issuing checks with insufficient funds (Pen. Code, § 476a), the court placed defendant Donald L.”
People v. Spearman (1979) cal · cites it 2× “) The appropriate focus has always been on the elements of the offense itself: thus, in Beagle , this court found that issuing a check without sufficient funds (Pen. Code, § 476a) reflects on credibility, since a *115 necessary element of this offense is the "intent to defraud.”
People v. Totari (2002) cal “100338, defendant also pleaded guilty and was convicted of check fraud (Pen. Code, § 476a, subd. (a)) and possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf.”
Show all 119 citing cases →
— Cal. Penal Code § 476a(a) — 6 cases
Del Campo v. Kennedy (2008) ca9
Tijani v. Holder (2010) ca9
Cluster 89
Tijani v. Holder (2010) ca9
Sergei Portnoy v. City of Woodland (2015) ca9
— Cal. Penal Code § 476a(g) — 1 case
Schwarm v. Craighead (2008) caed “In its first letter, DATS informed the debtor that a complaint had been submitted accusing the debtor of a violation of California Penal Code section 476a and that the only way “[t]o suspend this criminal investigation” was to submit information or pay the debt.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.