People v. Stephan CA6

Filed 12/11/15 P. v. Stephan CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H040062 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1244107)

v.

SAMIH STEPHAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Samih Stephan appeals from a judgment entered following a jury trial. On appeal, defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for grand theft. (Pen. Code, §§ 484, 487, subd. (a).)1 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE This case arises out of a series of theft offenses that defendant committed over six days. Defendant was charged and convicted of robbery of two hotels, two drugstores and one bank. (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c); counts 1 through 5.) Defendant does not dispute these convictions.2

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 The facts underlying these convictions are omitted because they are not relevant to the issues on appeal.

In addition to the robberies noted above, defendant was also charged with grand theft of hotel keys. (§§ 484, 487, subd. (a); count 6.) Defendant acknowledges that he stole the hotel keys, but argues that the keys were not worth more than $950, and as a result, he should have been convicted of petty theft. On the night of October 26, 2012, when the assistant general manager of the Plaza Suites Hotel, Adrian Flores arrived at work, he was informed by hotel staff that the hotel keys were missing. These keys included the entrance key, the outside-emergency key, a lock-out key, and others. The lockout key allowed the hotel to make a guest’s key inoperable so as to lock the guest out of their room. To address the issue of the missing keys, the hotel hired a locksmith to change the locks and keys. The lock-out key was deprogrammed, a new master set of keys was created, and the locksmith started replacing the locks on the individual hotel rooms. Before the locksmith completed the job, the police informed Flores that the keys had been recovered. Flores contacted the locksmith and told him to stop the job. Flores gave conflicting testimony at trial about the locksmith’s charges. On direct examination, Flores testified that he received an invoice from the locksmith for $5,000 reflecting the work completed. On cross-examination, Flores said that he may have told the police it was going to cost the hotel $1,600 to replace the locks and keys. At the preliminary hearing, Flores testified that he thought it was going to cost the hotel approximately $3,000 to replace the locks and keys. Flores did not bring the locksmith’s invoice to court. There was no evidence presented regarding the market value of the keys. Following his conviction for the robberies and grand theft, defendant was sentenced to state prison for a total term of nine years eight months. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.