P. v. Beck
Filed 3/28/06 P. v. Beck CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER BECK, Defendant and Appellant. |
A110300
(Del Norte County Super. Ct. No. CRF 05-9202) |
On April 26, 2005, a jury convicted defendant Christopher Beck of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459)[1] (count 1), grand theft of personal property (§ 487, subd. (d)) (count 2),[2] receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)) (count 4), and false personation (§ 529) (count 5).[3] Defendant argues that (1) the court's failure to instruct the jury that it could not convict defendant for both count 2 and count 4 violated section 496, subdivision (a) and resulted in prejudicial error; and (2) defendant's sentence on count 1 should have been stayed pursuant to section 654. We agree with each contention.
Factual and Procedural Background
On March 4, 2005, Jennifer Brohmer, a cashier at Crescent Ace Hardware, received a phone call from a man identifying himself as Matt Westbrook. Brohmer knew that Westbrook had a standing charge account (account) with the store. The caller told her that a man by the name of Kevin Goodman was authorized to charge on the Westbrook account for a one-month period.
Later that morning, a man identifying himself as Goodman charged a number of items to the Westbrook account. Brohmer talked with the man as he came through the cashier's line and concluded that his voice was not the same as the voice of the man on the phone who identified himself as Westbrook. The same man returned later that day and again charged a number of items to the Westbrook account. The two charges totaled approximately $2,700. At trial, Brohmer indicated that defendant was not the person who identified himself as Goodman at the store.
Later that same day, the man identifying himself as Westbrook called Brohmer and inquired about lumber.[4] She directed his call to the lumber department. As a result of the call, a large delivery of lumber, wafer board and ready mix charged to the Westbrook account was made to defendant's residence. The delivery invoice showed a signature of â€
