From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Wong

Court of Appeals of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two.
Nov 19, 2003
No. E032767 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2003)

Opinion

E032767.

11-19-2003

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BEN GIA WONG, Defendant and Appellant,

Gregory Marshall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Robert M. Foster and James D. Dutton, Supervising Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


1. Introduction

Defendant Ben Gia Wong and his wife, codefendant Fong Lee Wong, were both charged with and convicted of two counts of money laundering, one count of conspiracy to commit grand theft, including a special allegation, and 12 counts of grand theft. The court sentenced Ben Gia Wong to four years in prison.

Penal Code section 186.10. All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Sections 182, subdivision (a), 484, and 487, subdivision (a).

Section 12022.6, subdivision (a)(2).

Defendant appeals, contending the statute of limitations barred the prosecution, insufficient evidence proved him guilty of grand theft, and an improper enhancement was imposed. Codefendant Fong Lees appeal was decided by this court in case No. E030287, filed on March 25, 2003, in which we reversed her convictions for money laundering and conspiracy to commit grand theft based on the statute of limitations but affirmed the 12 convictions for grand theft based on the sufficiency of the evidence.

Applying the doctrine of law of the case, we reverse defendants convictions for money laundering and conspiracy and the related enhancement. We hold the prosecution for grand theft was not time-barred and we affirm defendants grand theft convictions based on the sufficiency of the evidence.

People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 786, citing People v. Shuey (1975) 13 Cal.3d 835, 841, disapproved another point in People v. Bennett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 373, 389, footnote 5.

2. Facts

We incorporate by reference the facts as previously set forth in case No. E030287, pages two through eight. In summary, the evidence showed that defendant and his wife owned a market in Hemet. Between February 27, 1995, and June 28, 1996, they deposited 429 third-party tax refund checks, worth more than $ 408,000, with three banks. The checks were stolen and the endorsements forged. During the relevant time period, defendants withdrew more than $470,000 from their deposit accounts. The banks lost about $331,000 due to the bad checks.

The prosecution first commenced on July 7, 1999, more than three years after the last bad check was deposited on June 28, 1996.

3. Statute of Limitations

Defendants first challenge is that the entire prosecution is barred by the statute of limitations. That issue was decided in the previous appeal in which we held that the money laundering charges, counts I and II, and the conspiracy charge, count III, were barred by the three-year statute of limitations and the grand theft charges, counts IV through XV, were not barred by the four-year statute of limitations. Employing different rationale, the parties attempt to argue our previous opinion was wrongly decided. But they both concede the doctrine of law of the case applies. We have reviewed our previous analysis of this issue and do not find it to be in error. Reversing the convictions for money laundering and conspiracy means the enhancement, which was based on the conspiracy charge, is then eliminated. In addition, the case must be remanded for resentencing on the 12 remaining grand theft charges.

Sections 801.5 and 803; E030287, pages 8-11.

4. Sufficiency of Evidence

As to the grand theft counts, defendant contends the convictions cannot be sustained because the Wongs did not receive cash back from the bank at the time they made the deposits of the stolen, forged checks. Therefore, their acts were "incomplete" and did not constitute grand theft by false pretenses. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.

People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576.

To obtain a conviction for grand theft by false pretenses, the prosecution had to prove the wrongdoer induced the victim by false pretenses to transfer property to the wrongdoer. Certainly a defendant can be convicted of grand theft by false pretenses when he cashes a check using false identification. A defendant also can be convicted when the victim is induced to deposit money in a corporate or business account controlled by the defendant, even if the defendant does not withdraw the money immediately.

People v. Ashley (1954) 42 Cal.2d 246, 253, 259.

People v. Curtin (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 528, 531.

People v. Cuccia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 785, 796-797; People v. Ashley, supra, 42 Cal.2d at pages 253, 255-256; People v. Schmidt (1956) 147 Cal.App.2d 222, 226, 228.

Here, as soon as the banks accepted the deposits made by defendants and credited their accounts, the banks surrendered both title and possession of the money to defendants and the crime of grand theft was complete. Even if that were not the case, then title and possession transferred later when defendants withdrew from their accounts amounts of money that equaled or exceeded the amounts of the forged, stolen deposits.

People v. Adams (1955) 137 Cal.App.2d 660, 671.

We reject defendants challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on his 12 convictions for grand theft.

5. Disposition

We reverse defendants convictions on counts I, II, and III for money laundering and conspiracy and the related enhancement on the conspiracy count. We affirm the 12 grand theft convictions and remand for resentencing.

We concur: Ramirez P.J., King J.


Summaries of

People v. Wong

Court of Appeals of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two.
Nov 19, 2003
No. E032767 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2003)
Case details for

People v. Wong

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BEN GIA WONG, Defendant and…

Court:Court of Appeals of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two.

Date published: Nov 19, 2003

Citations

No. E032767 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2003)