People v. Yurman CA2/5
Filed 9/18/15 P. v. Yurman CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE
THE PEOPLE, B259919
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA077434) v.
YALE J. YURMAN,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Honorable Dalila C. Lyons, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Marta I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Yale J. Yurman appeals his conviction of one count of annoying or molesting a child under the age of 18, in violation of Penal Code section 647.6, subdivision (c)(2), elevated to a felony based on defendant’s prior sex crime conviction.1 We affirm, and modify the judgment to reflect the correct number of custody credits.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND On June 3, 2013, Vladimir Negri, a loss prevention officer at the Target in Valencia, CA, observed defendant standing in the checkout line behind a girl approximately 14 years old, who was wearing a pink bathing suit and a white see-through cover-up. Negri observed defendant making hand movements with his cell phone, and could see that defendant had taken a picture of the girl’s buttocks. On June 18, 2013, Negri was on duty and walking through the children’s department when he again saw defendant. Negri notified his manager, Ruzanna Sahakyan, to initiate surveillance on defendant. Sahakyan saw defendant in the bed and bath department near several mothers with small children. Defendant was holding his cell phone near his waist and he appeared to be taking photographs of them. Defendant went to the self-checkout register where there were two girls and took photographs of them. Defendant then went to the Starbucks and stood behind a mother who had three children with her (two boys and a girl), and took photographs of them. Using the information from the license plate on defendant’s car, Detective Mike Marino of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department contacted defendant at his residence. Defendant told Detective Marino that he was a convicted child molester and was a sexual registrant. When Detective Marino confronted defendant with the incident at Target, defendant admitted following the girls and videotaping them. Defendant stated he took the photographs to prevent himself from molesting the children, and continually videotapes new girls because the pictures stop working for him. Defendant would go
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)