People v. Young CA3

Filed 1/4/16 P. v. Young CA3 Opinion on transfer from Supreme Court

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, C075805

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MFE13001273) v. OPINION ON TRANSFER TAMIE SUE YOUNG,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted defendant Tamie Sue Young of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459; unless otherwise stated, statutory references that follow are to the Penal Code) and grand theft from an elder (§ 368, subd. (d)(2)). The trial court placed defendant on three years’ probation with 200 days in county jail. On appeal, defendant contends there is insufficient evidence of the market value of the stolen items to support the grand theft from an elder conviction, the trial court did not properly instruct the jury, and she is entitled to two days of presentence conduct credits.

1

In our original opinion, we affirmed the judgment in its entirety. The Supreme Court granted review and subsequently transferred the matter back to us with directions to vacate our decision and to reconsider the conduct credit issue in light of People v. Dieck (2009) 46 Cal.4th 934 (Dieck). Pursuant to the directions of The California Supreme Court, we vacated our prior decision on October 21, 2015, and have reconsidered the matter. Defendant is entitled to two days of conduct credits and we shall modify the judgment accordingly. In all other respects we shall affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Seventy-four-year-old Sharon Thompson and her 78-year-old husband Paul Thompson lived by themselves in their home in Bishop. In spring 2012, Sharon Thompson hired defendant to do housecleaning. Defendant cleaned the Thompson home every two weeks. She cleaned the home for about two hours and was not supervised. Sharon Thompson owned a gold plumeria ring set with small diamonds and a Swiss Bucherer pendant watch on a 32-inch gold chain, storing them in a special spot in the master bedroom. She wore the jewelry to church on January 20, 2013. The next day, she noticed that they and a kangaroo charm on a gold rope chain were missing. Paul Thompson noticed his gold Southern California Edison 35-years-of-service ring was also missing. Defendant cleaned the Thompson home on January 21, 2013. While cleaning the house, defendant went to her car at least once. Sharon Thompson had bought over 20 pieces of gold jewelry. She purchased the plumeria ring in Hawaii for $630. She estimated the value of the kangaroo charm and gold chain to be around $600. She had bought the watch and chain in Switzerland, and estimated its value at $1,200. Paul Thompson, who collected gold coins and followed the market price of gold, estimated his ring was worth between $500 and $600.