P. v.Radford
Filed 4/12/07 P. v.Radford CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WALTER RADFORD, Defendant and Appellant. | B192299 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA089866) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Larry S. Knupp, Judge. Affirmed.
Marylou Hillberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Walter Radford appeals from a judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of making a false financial statement, count 3 (Pen. Code, 532a, subd. (1))[1]and forgery, count 4 (Pen. Code, 470b.)[2] He admitted he suffered a prior conviction and served a prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). He was sentenced to prison for a total of three years, consisting of the middle term of two years for count 3, a concurrent middle term of two years for count 4, and one year pursuant to his prior conviction enhancement.
The evidence at trial established that on June 23, 2005, John Martinez was working as a salesman at Cerritos Dodge in Cerritos when appellant drove up and inquired about a Dodge Magnum. After test driving the vehicle, appellant and Mr. Martinez returned to the dealership, and they discussed upgrading the wheels on the vehicle. They negotiated a purchase price of approximately $40,000 and that the down payment would be made using an American Express credit card. Appellant presented a completed credit application with the name of Glover Crockett as the applicant and a social security number. He also presented a drivers license in the same name.[3]Mr. Martinez testified the social security number was an essential ingredient in running a credit application. When Mr. Martinez ran appellants credit using the application and drivers license, the date of birth on the credit report did not match the one on appellants identification. Mr. Martinez was trained in detecting fake identification cards and upon determining that the identification card was fake, police were called and appellant was arrested. Deputy Sheriff John Steele testified that the drivers license was not a real drivers license and would be classified as false and counterfeited. An inquiry of the California Law Enforcement Telecommunication System resulted in no record of an individual with the subject drivers license number and no individual with the name of Glover Crockett.
After review of the record, appellants court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On November 20, 2006, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. On December 18, 2006, he filed a supplemental brief arguing that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for making a false financial statement in violation of Penal Code section 532a, subdivision (1). He argued, [i]t is not enough to produce evidence that a mere false statement was made . . . controlling law dictates a requirement of evidence regarding a false statement of financial condition, or means or ability to pay. Respondent would suggest that appellant violated [Penal Code section 532a, subdivision (1)] by using a false name or social security number alone. Appellant claims the statute is not violated simply by making a false written statement of a name or other specified identification and cites People v. Vincent (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 696.
Penal Code section 532a, subdivision (1) provides: Any person who shall knowingly make . . . either directlyor indirectly . . . any false statement in writing, with intent that it shall be relied upon, respecting the financial condition, or means or ability to pay, of himself, or any other person, firm or corporation, in whom he is interested, or for whom he is acting, for the purpose of procuring in any form whatsoever, either the delivery of personal property, the payment of cash, the making of a loan or credit, the extension of a credit, . . . for the benefit of either himself or of such person, firm or corporation shall be guilty of a public offense.
While appellant is correct in his argument that People v. Vincent, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at pp. 702-703, concluded that the false statements of name, address and social security number made on the subject documents did not involve financial condition within the meaning of Penal Code section 532a, subdivision (1), that case is distinguishable from the present. In that case, the court found [n]owhere on the account applications, the request for automated teller card, or the inquiry regarding identification were there any representations regarding the business or financial condition of appellant or her means or ability to pay. (Id. at p. 702, fn. omitted.) In the present case, on Peoples Exhibit 1, the Motor Vehicle Credit Application for Purchase, in addition to falsely representing himself as Glover Crockett and giving a false social security number, he falsely listed bank references and balances in these bank accounts for Glover Crockett under Asset and Debt Information. In combination, these statements qualify as false statements in writing respecting financial condition within the meaning of Penal Code section 532a, subdivision (1).
Appellant also argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for violating Penal Code section 470b, displaying or possessing a forged license.[4] He asserts that the actual drivers license possessed or displayed must be government issued and the subject license was not. Penal Code section 470b refers to a drivers license of the type enumerated in Penal Code section 470a. Penal Code section 470a refers to a license that is altered, falsified, forged, duplicated or in any manner reproduced or counterfeited and does not specify that the actual item displayed or possessed had to have been issued by the government.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that appellant has, by virtue of counsels compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal. 4th 106, 112-113.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
MANELLA, J.
We concur:
WILLHITE, Acting P.J.
SUZUKAWA, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line Lawyers.
[1] It originally was alleged as a violation of Penal Code section 532a, subdivision (2) and over appellants objection was, thereafter, amended to allege a violation of Penal Code section 532a, subdivision (1).
[2] Appellants motion pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5 was denied as to all counts. His motion pursuant to Penal Code section 995 was granted with respect to count 2, identity theft (Pen. Code, 530.5, subd. (a)). It was stipulated that the court would refer to counts 3 and 4 as counts 1 and 2 so as not to confuse the jury. During trial there was some confusion regarding what forgery statute was charged and the court amended the information to allege a violation of Penal Code section 470b.
[3] The social security number on the application belonged to Dale Price, who did not know appellant and had not authorized anyone to use the number to purchase a car or secure financing.
[4] Penal Code Code section 470b provides, Every person who displays or causes or permits to be displayed or has in his possession any drivers license or identification card of the type enumerated in Section 470a with the intent that such drivers license or identification card be used to facilitate the commission of any forgery, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year.
Penal Code section 470a provides, Every person who alters, falsifies, forges, duplicates or in any manner reproduces or counterfeits any drivers license or identification card issued by a governmental agency with the intent that such drivers license or identification card be used to facilitate the commission of any forgery, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year.
