<p><b>PEOPLE v. GARCIA</b></p> <br /> <p><b> </b></p> <br /> <h6>Filed 8/28/06</h6> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"><b>IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA</b></p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p><a name="plaintiff"></a>THE PEOPLE, )</p> <br /> <p> )</p> <br /> <p> <a name="LD"></a>Plaintiff and Respondent, )</p> <br /> <p> ) S<a name="casenum"></a>124090</p> <br /> <p> v. )</p> <br /> <p> ) <a name="appealnum"></a>Ct.App. 3 C043590</p> <br /> <p><a name="defendent"></a>CATHY DAWN GARCIA, )</p> <br /> <p> ) <a name="county"></a>Butte County</p> <br /> <p> <a name="VD"></a>Defendant and Appellant. ) <a name="supernum"></a>Super. Ct. No. CM015310</p> <br /> <p>__________________________________ )<u></u></p> <br /> <p><a name="mainstory"></a>Nearly 25 years ago, we held in <i>People v. Sims</i> (1982) 32 Cal.3d 468, that a welfare recipient who has been exonerated of <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">fraud charges</a> by the <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">Department of Social Services</a> in an administrative hearing cannot be criminally prosecuted for <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">welfare fraud</a>, because the doctrine of <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">collateral estoppel</a> bars the prosecution from relitigating issues that were determined in the administrative hearing. The Attorney General urges us to reconsider our decision in <i>Sims</i> based, in part, on statutory changes enacted more than 20 years ago. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that these statutory and other changes do not warrant reconsideration of this court's decision in <i>Sims</i>.</p> <br /> <h1 align="left"> </h1> <br /> <h1>I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND</h1> <br /> <p> Defendant is the mother of four children. She applied for welfare assistance, representing that her household unit consisted of herself and all of her children. A dispute arose over whether defendant's two oldest children, both boys, actually were residing in defendant's household, or instead were living with their father. </p> <br /> <p> In August 2000, the <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">Butte County Department of Social Welfare</a> (the County) sent defendant several notices of action advising her that she had received $5,839 in welfare benefits between October 1998 and June 2000 to which she was not entitled: $3,669 in cash aid and $2,170 in food stamps. The initial notices explained that â€