People v. Flowers

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOEY FLOWERS, Defendant and…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Sixth District

Date published: May 31, 2011

No. H036095 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 31, 2011)

Opinion

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOEY FLOWERS, Defendant and Appellant. H036095 California Court of Appeal, Sixth District May 31, 2011

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Monterey County Super. Ct. No. SS101480.

PREMO, J.

After a court trial, the trial court convicted defendant Joey Flowers of burglary and forgery. It sentenced defendant to 16 months in prison for burglary. And it sentenced defendant to 16 months in prison for forgery but stayed the sentence. On appeal, defendant contends that no substantial evidence supports the forgery conviction. The People concede the point, and we agree that the concession is appropriate. We therefore modify and affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

Defendant used another’s credit card to purchase a television set from the Army/Air Force PX in Fort Ord. The cashier did not verify defendant’s identification or look at his electronic signature and compare it with the signature on the credit card.

Defendant argued that the People had failed to prove forgery because there was no evidence that he had signed another’s name: “To prove the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that the defendant signed someone else’s name or signed a false name to, in this case, a credit card. [¶] And there’s been no evidence that he did that. There’s evidence that he signed a card. But there’s no evidence that he signed someone else’s name or a false name. For all we know, he signed his own name to that card.”

The trial court disagreed with defendant’s analysis: “Two witnesses testified that [defendant] signed the terminal, the device for which the card was slid. The owner of the card has testified that no one was authorized to use the card.... [¶]... [¶] To me, whether he signed his own name or signed the victim’s name or signed an ‘X’ sign is immaterial. He was using a credit card for which he did not have the authorization to use.”

DISCUSSION

Forgery is a writing that falsely purports to be the writing of another. (People v. Bendit (1896) 111 Cal. 274, 276-277; Schiavon v. Arnaudo Brothers (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 374, 382.) Since there is no evidence that defendant signed another’s name for the credit card purchase, there is insufficient evidence of forgery.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is modified to strike the conviction for forgery. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: Rushing, P.J., Elia, J.