People v. Larkin CA3

Filed 3/14/14 P. v. Larkin CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo) ----

THE PEOPLE, C068884

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF 07-4529)

v.

CHRISTOPHER ALAN LARKIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Christopher Alan Larkin appeals from his convictions of one count each of forgery (Pen. Code, § 470, subd. (d)),1 attempted grand theft (§§ 487, subd. (a); 664, subd. (a)), and attempted theft from an elder (§§ 368, subd. (d); 664, subd. (a)). He contends the trial court erred by (1) admitting into evidence, and doing so without admonishing the jury, an allegedly prejudicial statement made by an investigating officer

1 Undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.

1

during a videotaped interview with defendant; and (2) miscalculating his presentence custody and conduct credits. Defendant forfeited his evidentiary claim by not objecting specifically to the contested evidence, and his trial counsel did not commit ineffective assistance by failing to object. The trial court also did not abuse its discretion by not admonishing the jury. Except to modify the judgment to correct the award of presentence credits, we affirm. FACTS In February 2007, the home of 97-year-old Ida Landerman was burglarized and ransacked. The burglar took a box of checks. In July 2007, Colin Stanbusky and Breanne Frady posted a drum set for sale on Craigslist for $1,200. On July 31, defendant met with Stanbusky, viewed the drum set, and offered to purchase it by check. He presented Stanbusky with one of Landerman’s checks already written in the amount of $1,000. He claimed Landerman was his girlfriend’s mother. Stanbusky told defendant he would not release the drums until the check cleared. Defendant called an account information line and had Stanbusky listen to the recording of the account balance, which was $17,000. Stanbusky kept the check but told defendant he still would not release the drum set until the check cleared. After defendant left, Stanbusky and Frady believed the check was suspicious, and they contacted the police. Landerman did not write or sign the check. She had never seen defendant before and did not give him the check for $1,000. Davis police officers executed a search warrant at defendant’s house. In a dresser drawer in defendant’s bedroom, police found Landerman’s driver’s license. In a videotaped interview with Detective Scott Smith of the Davis Police Department, defendant claimed his former girlfriend, Debbie, had given him the $1,000 check to compensate him for selling him a stolen drum set he had to return. Landerman’s name was on the check, and Debbie had allegedly told defendant Landerman was her