People v. Majidi CA2/2

Filed 6/23/14 P. v. Majidi CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B248279

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA073107) v.

MOHAMMAD MAJIDI,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michael Jesic, Judge. Reversed in part and affirmed in part.

Marta I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Margaret E. Maxwell and Tasha G. Timbadia, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ___________________________________________________

A jury convicted defendant Mohammad Majidi of grand theft auto (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (d)(1))1 (count 1), fraudulently writing a nonsufficient funds check (§ 476a, subd. (a)) (count 2), second degree burglary (§ 459) (count 3), and the unlawful taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) (count 4). The trial court sentenced defendant to county jail for the midterm of two years on count 1. Defendant was sentenced to concurrent sentences of the midterm of two years on counts 2 through 4, which sentences were stayed pursuant to section 654. Defendant appeals on the grounds that (1) evidence of other crimes was prejudicial and deprived him of his right to due process and a fair trial, and (2) it was error to convict him of both grand theft auto and the unlawful taking of a vehicle based on the same act. The People concede the second point, and we accordingly reverse the judgment in count 4. Otherwise, we affirm. FACTS Anthony Lucas is a salesperson at Keyes Hyundai in Van Nuys. On November 23, 2012, he assisted defendant with the test drive and ostensible purchase of a pre-owned Hyundai Sonata. In connection with the transaction, defendant filled out and signed a credit application, providing information such as his name, address, references, and monthly income. Lucas gave the application to the sales manager, Darin Lawrence, to complete a credit check. Lawrence determined that a $5,000 down payment was required for defendant to purchase the car. Defendant agreed to the terms and was taken to the finance department to meet with Fedy Giragosian, the finance manager. Defendant reviewed and signed purchase documents and provided Giragosian with a personal check for $5,000 from a Citibank account. Giragosian observed defendant to be very cooperative and easygoing. He accepted every option offered and signed all the agreements immediately, as if he wanted to finish with the purchase as soon as possible.