From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Cruz

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District
Sep 2, 2008
No. F054982 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 2, 2008)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County No. VCF175633, James W. Hollman, Judge.

Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


OPINION

THE COURT

Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Dawson, J.

PROCEEDINGS

On July 19, 2007, an information was filed charging appellant, Yrays Rodriguez Cruz, with feloniously obtaining personal identifying information from the victim to obtain credit, goods, or services (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a), count one). The information alleged two counts of grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a), counts two & three), and seven counts of forgery (§ 470, subd. (a), counts four through ten). The information also alleged Cruz had two prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and three prior convictions disqualifying her from probation eligibility (§ 1203, subd. (e)(4)).

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

On January 3, 2008, Cruz entered into a plea agreement in which she would admit counts one, two, and four. Cruz would receive a prison sentence of two years on count one, concurrent sentences on counts two and four, and the remaining allegations would be dismissed. The court advised Cruz of the consequences of her plea and obtained an acknowledgement from her that she was entering her change of plea without any threat and that she had enough time to consult her attorney concerning possible defenses.

The trial court advised Cruz of, and Cruz waived, her constitutional rights pursuant to Boykin/Tahl. The court found a sufficient factual basis for Cruz’s plea based on the preliminary hearing transcript. Cruz pled no contest to counts one, two, and four. She also admitted the two prior prison term enhancements. On January 29, 2008, the trial court sentenced Cruz to prison for two years on count one and to concurrent sentences of two years each on counts two and four. The court dismissed the prior prison term enhancements. The court imposed a restitution fine of $500 and left the matter of the amount of direct victim restitution open for a future hearing. Cruz waived her right to appear at the victim restitution hearing. On March 25, 2008, the parties stipulated to direct victim restitution of $8,000 as set forth in the probation report. Cruz’s request for a certificate of probable cause was denied by the trial court.

Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122.

The original abstract of judgment indicated Cruz was convicted in count one of a violation of section 530.5, subdivision (e)(4). In fact, Cruz was convicted of section 530.5, subdivision (a). The trial court amended this clerical error in the abstract of judgment at the request of appellate counsel on June 18, 2008.

Cruz’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The opening brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that Cruz was advised she could file her own brief with this court. By letter on May 20, 2008, we invited Cruz to submit additional briefing. To date, she has not done so.

FACTS

Cruz impersonated Annette M. and approached Andrew Levy, managing partner of a financial investment company, to sell Annette M.’s home. Levy met Cruz at the residence. No one else was there. Cruz executed a real estate purchase agreement for the sale of Annette M.’s home. The signatures on the contract purported to be those of Annette M. and her estranged husband. Levy’s company decided to purchase the property for $8,000. The purchase price was low because the property was in foreclosure. Levy’s company faced three government liens on the property as well as the mortgage held by the bank. Also, the home needed a substantial amount of work.

Cruz showed Levy a California Identification Card with the name Annette M. Cruz seemed to know everything about Annette M. including her social security number, date of birth, and date of marriage. The only thing Cruz looked up was the estranged husband’s social security number. Cruz also knew the PIN number for one of Annette M.’s bank accounts. Cruz filled out the information on the hood of Levy’s car.

Levy hired a notary to notarize Cruz’s signature for the grant deed of trust. The notary returned with documents, including the grant deed of trust. The signatures on the grant deed of trust were identical to the ones in the notary’s book. Levy later met Cruz in Visalia at a notary’s address to give her the final payment for the property. Cruz signed more documents and executed a receipt for the final payment. Cruz signed all the documents with Annette M.’s name.

Levy later received a call informing him that Annette M. had not signed anything. Levy determined Annette M. had not signed any of the original contracts, title documents, or the deed. Annette M. was given some compensation from Levy’s company and did execute the proper documents and deed to resolve the issue of title. Levy’s company lost money on the transaction.

Annette M. testified she owned a home in Visalia that she purchased in 2001 with her husband. Cruz was Annette M.’s roommate in a women’s shelter. Annette M. received identifying information at the shelter, including her driver’s license and social security number. Cruz had access to this information. Annette M. stopped making her mortgage payments on her home. In 2005, Annette M. did not authorize Cruz to sell her home and received no money for the sale of her home. When shown all of the documents, supposedly executed by her, Annette M. testified that she signed none of them.

Detective Saldana of the Tulare County Sheriff’s Department had expertise in fingerprint pattern recognition and comparison. Saldana took fingerprint samples from Cruz, her husband, and from the notary who notarized the documents for the sale of Annette M.’s property. Cruz’s print was in the notary book. An investigator with the district attorney’s office interrogated Cruz after advising her of her Miranda rights. Cruz agreed to talk to the investigator and admitted signing the grant deed and deed of trust for the sale of Annette M.s’ home.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.

After independent review of the record, we have concluded there are no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Cruz

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District
Sep 2, 2008
No. F054982 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 2, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Cruz

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. YRAYS RODRIGUEZ CRUZ, Defendant…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fifth District

Date published: Sep 2, 2008

Citations

No. F054982 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 2, 2008)