P. v. Green 4/24/07 CA2/8

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2007 » P. v. Green 4/24/07 CA2/8

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: B178945

Case Date: 07/12/2007

Preview:Filed 4/24/07 P. v. Green CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JONH DEROY GREEN III, Defendant and Appellant.

B178945 (Los Angeles County Super Ct. No. YA056315)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Sandra Thompson, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Fay Arfa, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Roberta L. Davis and Stacy S. Schwartz, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________________

INTRODUCTION Appellant John Deroy Green III challenges his numerous forgery, grand theft, and obtaining money by false pretenses convictions on the grounds of insufficient evidence, lack of jurisdiction, and asserted trial court error in failing to conduct an adequate hearing regarding jury misconduct, failing to respond to a question from the jury during deliberations, denying a request to appoint substitute counsel, sentencing him on two counts each with respect to victims Headlee and Hestmark, and imposing consecutive sentences based on facts not found by the jury. We conclude substantial evidence supports appellant's conviction pertaining to victim Hestmark. A juror who read about contracts in the courthouse law library did not commit misconduct. The trial court prejudicially erred by ignoring a question from the jury during deliberations. It acted within its discretion, however, by denying appellant's motion for substitution of appointed counsel. The court permissibly sentenced appellant on multiple counts pertaining to victims Headlee and Hestmark, as the offenses were committed at widely separated times. Substantial evidence supports a finding of jurisdiction over the crimes against Headlee and Hestmark. Appellant's consecutive terms do not violate due process. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Over a period of several years, appellant obtained loans of money from numerous "investors" by telling them various record labels were interested in his music and he needed funds to complete his recordings. He showed several "investors" letters he had created that purported to be letters from Dreamworks Records to appellant, discussing a potential or pending purchase of his recordings. Appellant never repaid the loans from any of the "investors." In addition, he asked one "investor" and another individual to cash checks for him drawn on closed accounts or accounts containing insufficient funds. He did not repay any of the funds.

2

A jury convicted appellant of four counts of obtaining money by false pretenses (Pen. Code,

Download P. v. Green 4/24/07 CA2/8.pdf