P. v. Murry
Filed 5/3/06 P. v. Murry 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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, A109615
v. (Contra Costa County
Super. Ct. No. 050415570)
BRENDA JEAN-ASHLEY MURRY,
Defendant and Appellant.
______________________________________/
Brenda Jean-Ashley Murry appeals from a judgment entered after a jury convicted her of receiving stolen property. (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a).)[1] She contends her conviction must be reversed because the jury's verdict may have rested on an incorrect legal theory. We affirm the judgment.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On July 6, 2004, someone broke into Ana Rios-Serrano's home and stole her wallet.
On July 31, 2004, appellant was driving in Richmond when she was stopped for a traffic violation. When the officer determined appellant had an outstanding warrant, he arrested her. Another officer conducted an inventory search of appellant's car. He found appellant's purse in the trunk. Inside the purse, the officer found several items that had been stolen from Rios-Serrano's wallet including her North Carolina identification, her card from the Mexican Consulate, her Wells Fargo ATM and credit cards, her California benefits card, and her daughter's state benefits card. In addition, the officer found other documents that contained personal information from other persons such as social security numbers, driver's license numbers, birthdates, insurance information sheets, banking documents, copies of checks, and an insurance card. Apparently, the officer also found checks bearing the name of Roberta Poulton for an account Poulton never opened, and a check in the name of Kanokwan Pakabunto that was not created at Pakabunto's request.
Based on these facts, an information was filed charging appellant with, inter alia, receiving stolen property. The case proceeded to a jury trial where the prosecution presented the evidence we have set forth above. Appellant testified in her own defense. She said she had received the car she was driving from her brother only minutes before she was stopped. According to appellant, the stolen and suspicious documents were not in her purse and must have been found somewhere else in the car.
The jury apparently rejected this defense and convicted appellant of receiving stolen property. Subsequently, the court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation.
II. DISCUSSION
Count one, charging receiving stolen property, alleged that appellant â€
