People v. Wilson CA1/4

Filed 5/8/15 P. v. Wilson CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A139585 v. JEHOADDAN LATRICE WILSON, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 05-100028-0) Defendant and Appellant.

Jehoaddan Latrice Wilson appeals from a judgment upon a jury verdict finding her guilty of forgery (Pen. Code,1 § 470, subd. (d), counts one and two) and trespass (§ 602, subd. (m), count three). Defendant contends the trial court: (1) violated her due process rights by failing to provide her with a copy of the probation report, and (2) denied her an opportunity to be heard on the issue of restitution by failing to hold a separate restitution hearing. We affirm the judgment. I. FACTS On April 16, 2009, Candace Lui and Tri Chung (collectively, the Chungs), held an open house to rent their five-bedroom house in Brentwood. Defendant attended the open house and submitted her credit report in order to apply for the rental. The Chungs denied defendant’s application because her credit score was too low. On May 30, 2009, the Chungs returned to the house to show it to a prospective tenant and discovered that defendant had moved into their house and changed the locks. Lui rang the door bell and

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1

was greeted by defendant who said, “This is a shocker; isn’t it? . . . I shouldn’t have been turned down for this rental. I deserved it.” Chung called the police to report the incident. Defendant was calm and polite with the police and showed them a five-page rental agreement, receipts for the first and last month’s rent, a deposit, and a partial rent payment. Unsure about who was telling the truth, the police did not ask defendant to vacate the property. The Chungs subsequently hired an attorney to evict defendant. The police investigated a possible trespass and forgery and eventually executed a search warrant for the house. The police seized numerous documents related to the rental agreement in question. In August 2009, the police arrested defendant. At trial, Lui testified that her signature was forged on the rental agreement and that her name had been misspelled on the receipts. An investigator for the district attorney’s office testified that defendant admitted to forging the lease. Defendant, who represented herself at trial, did not present any evidence. Prior to the sentencing hearing, the probation officer “attempted to contact the defendant via telephone numerous times.” Defendant did not return the calls until the day before the hearing. By that time, the probation report had already been submitted to the court. At sentencing, the court remarked that defendant failed to show any remorse and had no appreciation for the harm she caused the Chungs. The court expressed the “expectation that [defendant] would go out and do this again” because she was a “con person.” The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for five years on conditions including that she serve nine months in county jail. The court further ordered that defendant pay restitution in the amount of $16,307.