Opinion
H044554
11-08-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KOROSH NAMAGHI MANAVI, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. C1521426)
Defendant Korosh Namaghi Manavi was required to register as a sex offender due to his 1993 misdemeanor conviction. Son Dang rented a "back" unit at 4134 Linetta Court to defendant from 2010 to early 2013. During that period, at one point defendant was gone for five or six months but continued to pay the rent. Defendant stopped living at the Linetta Court address prior to 2014. When defendant left that residence, he returned the key to Dang, but he asked Dang to store his furniture and collect his mail for him to pick up. Dang agreed to do so. Dang rented the back unit to a new tenant about six months after defendant moved out. Other tenants lived in the back unit in 2014 and 2015. Defendant came by once or twice a month to pick up his mail. Dang continued to store defendant's furniture, but defendant never spent the night at the Linetta Court address after 2013.
When defendant renewed his sex offender registration in March 2014 and March 2015, he listed the 4134 Linetta Court address as his current residence address. On June 22, 2015, San Jose police officers did a "compliance check" on defendant. They went to the 4134 Linetta Court residence. Dang's mother answered the door, and she said her son owned the home. The police showed her a photograph of defendant, and she did not recognize him and said he did not live there. They showed the photo to Dang's sister, who said she had never seen him before. The next day, Dang contacted the police and explained that defendant had previously lived there but had not lived there since 2013. A couple of days after he spoke with the police, Dang telephoned defendant and told him that the police were looking for him.
The police were not able to identify another place where defendant was regularly spending his time, keeping his property, or receiving mail. On July 14, 2015, defendant filed a registration form with the San Jose Police informing them that he was leaving San Jose and moving to Southern California.
Defendant was charged by information with one felony count of failure to inform law enforcement of a change of address with a prior failure to register conviction (Pen. Code § 290.013, subd. (a)) and two misdemeanor counts (one for 2014 and one for 2015) of providing false information on sex offender registration forms (§ 290.018, subd. (k)). The prior conviction allegation was bifurcated, and defendant waived his right to a jury trial on that allegation.
Subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code.
The information erroneously identified these counts as violations of section 290.018, subdivision (j) rather than subdivision (k). The information's language made it clear that the reference was intended to be to subdivision (k) since the substance of the allegations matched the language in subdivision (k). --------
The matter proceeded to a jury trial. Defendant's trial counsel argued that Dang had lied, and defendant had actually continued to reside at the Linetta Court address in 2014 and 2015. The jury was properly instructed, and it returned guilty verdicts on all three counts. The court found the prior conviction allegation true. Imposition of sentence was suspended, and the court placed defendant on probation conditioned on a 120-day jail sentence. It imposed the required fines and fees. Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal.
Appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief that states the case and the facts but raises no issues. Defendant was notified of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf but has failed to avail himself of the opportunity. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no arguable issues on appeal.
The probation order is affirmed.
/s/_________
Mihara, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
Elia, Acting P. J. /s/_________
Bamattre-Manoukian, J.