Forgers Get 6 Months in Prop. 187 Plea Bargain : Courts: In first sentencing under the new measure, prosecutors say unclear wording means stiffer terms are not mandatory. Initiative’s leaders are furious.

At a brief, unheralded court hearing in Norwalk on Wednesday, two illegal immigrants who pleaded guilty to manufacturing fake identification documents became the first defendants sentenced under the sole section of Proposition 187 now in effect.

But the unchallenged plea-bargain agreement, in which Mexican nationals Gerardo Espinoza, 26, and Antonio Serrano, 21, received six-month jail terms and three years probation, places the problematic wording of the initiative back in the spotlight and could wind up causing a major commotion among proponents of the controversial ballot initiative.

Proposition 187 campaign leaders were dismayed that the two defendants did not receive what they consider a mandatory, stiffer sentence.

“It’s incredible,” said Robert Kiley, who served as campaign consultant for the measure. “There’ll be a lot of fallout from the people of the state of California on how this is being handled.”

Proposition 187, approved by nearly 3 to 2 last November, states that those found guilty of manufacturing or selling fraudulent citizenship documents shall be sentenced to five years in state prison or fined $75,000.

But because of the way the initiative was worded, Los Angeles County prosecutors say that the stiff sentence is not mandatory and that they have substantial leeway in disposing of such cases. Because the two South-Central Los Angeles residents had no serious prior offenses, the district attorney’s office decided they qualified for lighter terms under an early disposition program for less serious felony offenders.

As a result of the plea bargain, the pair, who have been in the Los Angeles County Jail since their arrests Nov. 28, will probably be released in less than three months. At that point, they could still face three-year state prison terms if they violate the terms of their probation. But because they are illegal immigrants, they are likely to be deported once they complete their jail terms, defense lawyers said.

In sentencing Espinoza and Serrano during a seven-minute, interpreter-assisted court hearing in which Proposition 187 was never mentioned, Norwalk Superior Court Commissioner Norman P. Tarle said he believed “these gentlemen should have been going to state prison.” But Tarle added that he would abide by the agreement worked out by prosecutors and the defendants before Huntington Park Municipal Commissioner Sanford A. Warner last month.

District attorney’s officials say that they can use their discretion in reaching plea bargains on any crimes that are punishable by fines as well as prison.

“Under the law, when you have the option of giving a state prison sentence or a fine, that makes it a section for which probation can be granted,” said Robert Jordan, assistant head deputy of the district attorney’s Norwalk branch. “For us to argue it’s a mandatory state prison offense when the law is clear that it’s not would be unethical for us to do.”

The district attorney’s interpretation was not questioned in court by Tarle or Sanford, and was supported by the county Probation Department in a sentencing report that recommended that state prison time for the two defendants be suspended.

But Ron Prince, who was chairman of the Proposition 187 campaign and takes responsibility for drafting the section on fraudulent documents, said this week that the prosecutors’ reasoning flies in the face of his wording and intent.

“It’s a five-year prison term or a $75,000 fine--there is no other option,” said Prince, who has no legal training.

“I’d have to investigate and see what culpability would fall on the district attorney’s office,” added Prince, who was in Washington state Wednesday to speak to an agricultural convention about Proposition 187. “But if district attorneys think they can deliberately circumvent the will of the people, they’ll have a more serious problem on their hands than the persons they are prosecuting--and that is an outraged public.”

Two leading Los Angeles criminal law professors contacted by The Times agreed that the district attorney has a reasonable legal argument.

“As a general principle, I think the district attorney’s office is right--and I don’t agree with them often,” Loyola Law School professor Stan Goldman said.

The initiative was “sloppily drafted,” Goldman continued, noting that Prince and his co-authors would have flunked his criminal law class if they passed in work with wording like that in Proposition 187.

“This is a problem with all the referendums and initiatives in California,” Goldman added. “The authors may think they’re doing one thing, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they are doing that.”

Southwestern University School of Law professor Myrna Raeder agreed that the wording of many state initiatives “leaves something to be desired.” In this case, she said, prosecutors and Prince have legally arguable positions.

The fraudulent documents section is the only portion of Proposition 187 that is not barred from taking effect by state and federal judges who have questioned the constitutionality of major portions of the initiative as it was drafted by Prince and his co-authors. Sections currently enjoined include bans on public education, non-emergency health care and social service benefits for illegal immigrants.

In the case completed Wednesday, the two defendants were apprehended by Huntington Park police who had received a tip that fake documents were being made and sold in a room of the Branch Motel. When investigators burst into the room, they found the men, along with a small gray laminating machine, a hot, freshly laminated ID card, three blank residential alien cards and one blank Social Security card.

“It appears to have been a very small operation and these two guys appeared to be just workers,” Jordan said. “This was as light a violation of this section as you could probably have.”

Espinoza, a father of three who came to California in mid-1994, told authorities he had had trouble finding legitimate work and needed money to feed his family.

Serrano, a father of two, including a 1-month-old son, told a probation officer that he took part in the crime to support his family because he was not able to find gainful employment here. Serrano, who authorities say uses six different aliases, said he has worked at odd jobs since coming to California in 1992.

Before Proposition 187 became law, those who made fake citizenship documents faced up to three years in prison under the state’s forgery statute. When charged with multiple counts for each fraudulent document, the maximum sentence they could receive would be more than six years in prison. Proposition 187, in contrast, calls for five years in state prison no matter how many documents are printed or sold.

At their preliminary hearing last month, both defendants agreed to the plea bargain against the advice of their lawyers, who questioned whether the statute created under Proposition 187 was valid.