P. v. Larsen
Filed 7/7/06 P. v. Larsen CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT DEAN LARSEN, Defendant and Appellant. | E037476 (Super.Ct.No. FVI017139) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. David Cohn, Judge. Affirmed.
Stanley W. Hodge and Arshak Bartoumian for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Raquel M. Gonzalez, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Lynne G. McGinnis, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted appellant of five counts of grand theft from an elder (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (e))[1] (counts 1 and 3-6); two counts of commercial burglary (§ 459) (counts 7 and 8), two counts of embezzlement by an agent (§ 508) (counts 10 and 12); and one count of grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a)) (count 11). Appellant defrauded an elderly couple and embezzled money from their bank accounts by claiming he was a certified public accountant qualified to establish a living trust for them. The trial court placed appellant on probation for five years on the condition that he serve 365 days in the county jail. Appellant raises eight separate grounds of error in this appeal. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the conviction.
Statement of Facts
Appellant's business partner, Richard Leusch, introduced him to two friends from church, Steve and Heidi Lohmeyer. The Lohmeyers asked appellant if he could update the trust documents of Mrs. Lohmeyer's elderly parents, Wilfred and Lola Eckert. Appellant reviewed these trust documents, which were prepared in February 2000 by attorney William Antonioli (Antonioli trust), and told the Lohmeyers that the documents were invalid and needed to be replaced right away. Specifically, appellant told them that if either Mr. or Mrs. Eckert passed away, the surviving spouse would be thrown out of their home while the estate was in probate. Appellant told the Lohmeyers that the same thing would happen to the Lohmeyers' home, which was in the Eckerts' name. Appellant also told them that he was a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) and that he made a living drafting trust documents for elderly clients. The Lohmeyers agreed to retain appellant for this purpose and gave him a check for $1,500. This is the basis for count 11, grand theft, and count 12, embezzlement by an agent.
On or about September 10, 2001, appellant traveled to Los Altos, accompanied by Mrs. Lohmeyer, to meet with the Eckerts at their home. Appellant told the Eckerts that the Antonioli trust would cause most of the estate to be lost to taxes. The Eckerts were initially hesitant to have appellant replace the trust, but appellant pressured Mrs. Lohmeyer to convince them, and so they agreed. Mrs. Eckert told appellant that she wanted Mrs. Lohmeyer to be the trustee. This and the fraudulent statements appellant made to the Lohmeyers and the Eckerts through about October 1, 2001, are the bases for count 1, grand theft from an elder.
On September 17, 2001, appellant told the Lohmeyers that he needed another $300 in cash to pay his expenses for a second trip to Los Altos. The Lohmeyers gave him the cash. Appellant also told the Lohmeyers that the total cost of the trust and other documents would be $3,205.67 because they were more complex than he had anticipated. Appellant gave the Lohmeyers an invoice, which showed an amount due of $1,405.67, and assured them that this was the final amount.
Appellant showed the new trust documents and the Antonioli trust documents to his paralegal. The paralegal told appellant that the Antonioli trust documents were fine and just needed to be updated. Appellant told her to keep quiet, that he would do the talking, that there was â€
