P. v. Fuller
Filed 8/14/06 P. v. Fuller CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VALERIE LEIALOHA FULLER, Defendant and Appellant. | B185150 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA049227) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Harvey Giss, Judge. Affirmed.
William Flenniken, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Sanchez, Lawrence M. Daniels and Allison H. Chung, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________
Valerie Leialoha Fuller appeals from the judgment entered following her conviction by jury on count one - grand theft by embezzlement (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)). The court sentenced her to prison for three years.
In this case, in which the People presented evidence that appellant, a business employee, committed embezzlement by, inter alia, forging the business's checks and cashing them at a bank, we reject appellant's claim that the trial court's exclusion of evidence that (1) a second employee allegedly had complained that he was not the owner and (2) the second employee had a girlfriend, violated appellant's Sixth Amendment right to present a defense. Appellant proffered the evidence as third party exculpatory evidence to show that the second employee had a motive to steal and therefore committed the instant embezzlement by forging the checks and having his girlfriend, acting as an accomplice, cash them. However, the application of ordinary rules of evidence does not violate a defendant's right to present a defense, and the trial court properly ruled the proffered evidence was irrelevant and excludable under Evidence Code section 352.
We also conclude that appellant's claim, that a trial court's â€
