People v. Phann CA4/3

Filed 2/11/15 P. v. Phann CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G049296

v. (Super. Ct. No. 13NF1015)

KATBOPHA PHANN, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Sheila F. Hanson, Judge. Affirmed. Valerie G. Wass, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Teresa Torreblanca, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

INTRODUCTION A jury found Katbopha Phann guilty, as charged, under count 1 of forgery (Pen. Code, § 470, subd. (d)) and under count 2 of second degree commercial burglary (id., §§ 459, 460, subd. (b)). After a bench trial, the trial court found to be true allegations that Phann had suffered prior strike convictions. The court imposed a sentence of 32 months in prison on count 2 and imposed, then stayed execution of, pursuant to Penal Code section 654 (section 654), a concurrent 32-month sentence on count 1. Phann argues (1) the evidence was insufficient to establish the knowledge and intent required to convict him for forgery and commercial burglary and (2) the trial court erred by imposing a concurrent sentence on count 1. We conclude substantial evidence supported the convictions and the trial court correctly implemented section 654 by staying execution of sentence on count 1. We therefore affirm.

FACTS Joy Booher, a secretary at Newport Exterminating, arrived at work at 3:30 a.m. on Monday, December 3, 2012. She opened the office, turned the alarm off, and picked up the mail that had been delivered through a slot in the door on the previous Saturday. Usually the mail, which includes payments from customers, was bound with a rubber band; however, on that day, Booher found the mail spread about the floor, and there was less of it than usual. She found, on top of the mail, a stick that was three feet in length with a screw and a sticky substance on the tip. The mail slot also had a sticky substance on it, and leaves were stuck to the slot. When Curtis Good, Newport Exterminating’s president and owner, arrived at the office, he looked at the area by the door and determined somebody had tried to steal the mail. He reported the matter to the Irvine Police Department. Good later watched a video taken by a surveillance camera on the evening of December 2 and