Opinion
B162335.
11-19-2003
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AHCENE AZRINE, Defendant and Appellant.
David H. Goodwin, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Marc J. Nolan and Tita Van Nguyen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Ahcene Azrine appeals the judgment entered following his conviction for using false documents to conceal his true immigration status (Pen. Code, § 114) and transporting deceptive identification documents (§ 483.5). Azrine contends his convictions on those two counts are not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Azrine does not challenge his convictions for counterfeiting a government seal (§ 472) and perjury (§ 118).
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On April 7, 2002 Azrine was stopped by police officers because he matched the description of a robbery suspect. When the officers asked for identification, Azrine directed them to a wallet in the glove compartment of the automobile he was driving. There, officers found documents purporting to be a social security card, a French passport, a New York state identification card and an international drivers license, all of which were in the name of Saadi Ouiddir and contained Azrines photograph. Included with the passport was a visa waiver form indicating the bearer had entered the United States on September 23, 2000 under the name Saadi Ouiddir. The visa waiver expired December 22, 2000.
Officers also found in Azrines possession four passport-sized photographs of different men.
Azrine told officers that his name was Saadi Ouiddir, that he had come to the United States from Algeria on a student visa, that he was in the United States illegally and that he knew his social security card was false. Later, he admitted that his name Ahcene Azrine, not Saadi Ouiddir.
At the trial of this case to the court, the People called several government officials who testified the documents in Azrines possession were false. Jill Reid, a special agent with the Office of the Inspector General of the Social Security Administration, testified that the social security card, containing what purported to be the official seal of the Social Security Administration but missing several security features, was not an authentic social security card and that the Social Security Administration did not have any record of issuing a card to "Saadi Ouiddir."
Eileen Wolck, a supervising investigator with the Department of Motor Vehicles in New York, testified that the New York state identification card was not a government- issued card. Wolck highlighted the similarities and subtle differences between a validly issued New York state identification card and Azrines card.
Jeff Loftin of the California Highway Patrol described his expertise in detecting fraudulent documents and testified that in his experience a forged social security card and a false New York state identification card are possessed for the primary purpose of concealing ones true identity.
Reza Jalala, the operation manager for All Action Security, testified that Azrine sought employment with All Action in February 2002, filling out an application in which he stated he was a resident alien. Azrine presented Jalala with the false social security card and the New York state identification card to support his employment application and his representation in the application form that he was a resident alien lawfully in the United States. Believing the information and identification provided to be authentic, Jalala hired Azrine.
Azrine did not present any evidence.
The trial court found Azrine guilty of using false documents to conceal his immigration status (§ 114) and transporting deceptive documents with knowledge that the documents would be used for fraudulent purposes (§ 483.5). Azrine was sentenced to an aggregate state prison term of five years and eight months.
The sentence was calculated with a base term of five years for the use of false documents (§ 114), plus eight months (one-third the middle term of two years) for counterfeiting a government seal (§ 472). A term of two years for perjury (& sect; 118) was to run concurrently with the other terms and a two-year sentence for transporting deceptive documents (§ 483.5) was stayed pursuant to section 654.
CONTENTION
Azrine contends the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions under either section 114 or section 483.5.
DISCUSSION
1. Standard of Review
"In assessing a claim of insufficiency of evidence, the reviewing courts task is to review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence — that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value — such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578.) . . . . The standard of review is the same in cases in which the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence. (People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 792.) `"Although it is the duty of the [trier of fact] to acquit a defendant if it finds that circumstantial evidence is susceptible of two interpretations, one of which suggests guilt and the other innocence [citations], it is the [trier of fact], not the appellate court[,] which must be convinced of the defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. `"If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of facts findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment." [Citations.]"" (People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11, first and third brackets added.)
2. Substantial Evidence Supports Azrines Convictions under Sections 114 and 483.5.
a. Section 114
Section 114, enacted in 1994 as part of Proposition 187, makes it a felony for any person to "use[] false documents to conceal his or her true citizenship or resident alien status . . . ." To constitute a violation of section 114, use of the false document must be accomplished with the specific intent to conceal the users true citizenship or resident alien status. (People v. Rizo (2000) 22 Cal.4th 681, 686-687 (Rizo); People v. Salazar-Merino (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 590, 597 (Salazar-Merino).)
Substantial evidence supports the courts finding that Azrine used false documents with the specific intent to conceal his immigration status. Giving an assumed name, Azrine falsely declared in his application for employment with Jalalas security company that he was a resident alien. To support his application, he supplied Jalala, among other things, with the false social security card. Contrary to Azrines contention, it is of no significance that the social security card, by itself, does not purport to evidence Azrines actual citizenship or resident alien status. Section 114 does not require that the documents themselves actually conceal ones citizenship or immigration status. What matters is that the false documents were used with the specific intent to accomplish that objective. (See, e.g., Rizo,supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 687.)
In Rizo the Supreme Court construed section 113, enacted by Proposition 187 as the counterpart to section 114, which prohibits the manufacture or distribution of false documents "to conceal the true citizenship or resident alien status of another person." At issue was whether the defendants manufacture of false resident alien and resident identification cards for an undercover police officer violated section 113 because the card itself did not conceal the officers "true" citizenship or resident alien status; rather the card accurately declared the officer to be lawfully in the United States. Rejecting the defendants argument of factual impossibility, the Court observed that section 113 "does not state" that it "proscribes the manufacture or sale of false documents that actually conceal the immigration or citizenship status of another person"; rather it states that it makes it a felony to manufacture the documents with the intent to conceal "true immigration or citizenship status." (Rizo, supra, 22 Cal.4th at pp. 686-687.) The Court held that the defendant had the specific intent to conceal the undercover officers true citizenship or immigration status at the time he manufactured the card, irrespective of whether the card itself actually concealed that status. (Ibid.)
When the card itself misrepresents the true citizenship or resident alien status, no further evidence of specific intent is required. (See Salazar-Merino, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at pp. 595, 597 [defendants use of a false temporary resident alien card, without more, supplies necessary specific intent to conceal immigration status under section 114].) When the card itself does not purport to identify the true citizenship or resident alien status of its holder, however, other evidence of specific intent is required. Here, Azrine supplied the false documents to Jalala to support his employment application in which he declared himself to be a resident alien lawfully in the United States. This deliberate use of false documents is sufficient evidence of specific intent to support Azrines conviction under section 114.
Azrine contends substantial evidence does not support the courts finding that the New York identification card was a "deceptive identification document" within the meaning of section 483.5. He argues the card itself contained two disclaimers, one on the front, the other on the back, noting it was a "non-government issued" card. Wolck testified to the substantial similarities between an authentic New York state identification card and Azrines non-government-issued card, including the color, placement and lettering of the two cards and the similarities between the two coats of arms used on each. Wolck also noted that the disclaimers appeared in smaller type on the card. Jalala testified he believed the identification card was an authentic, government-issued card when it was presented to him in connection with Azrines application.
Section 483.5 provides: "(a) No deceptive identification document shall be manufactured, sold, offered for sale, furnished, offered to be furnished, transported, offered to be transported, or imported or offered to be imported into this state unless there is diagonally across the face of the document, in not less than 14-point type and printed conspicuously on the document in permanent ink, the following statement: [¶] NOT A GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT [¶] and, also printed conspicuously on the document, the name of the manufacturer. [¶] (b) As used in this section, `deceptive identification document means any document not issued by a governmental agency of this state, another state or the federal government, which purports to be, or which might deceive an ordinary reasonable person into believing that it is, a document issued by such an agency, including, but not limited to, a drivers license, identification card, birth certificate, passport, or social security card. [¶] . . . . [& para;] (d) Any person who violates the provisions of subdivision (a) who knows or reasonable should know that the deceptive identification document will be used for fraudulent purposes is guilty of a crime, and upon conviction therefor, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison."
To fall within the exception to section 483.5, the identification card had to contain the words "NOT A GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT" written diagonally across the cards face in not less than 14-point type. (§ 483.5.) That disclaimer was absent from the card. Substantial evidence thus supports the courts finding that the New York state identification card was a "deceptive document" under section 483.5, subdivision (b).
Azrine does not dispute that the social security card is also a deceptive document. Rather than challenging this finding, Azrine asserts that the People limited their argument in connection with the charge of violating section 483.5 to the identification card. In fact, the People argued below, as they do here, that both the identification card and the social security card were deceptive documents under section 483.5; and the trial court found both assertions to be true. Substantial evidence supports both findings.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: JOHNSON, J. and WOODS, J.