People v. Prezzy CA1/4

Filed 7/6/16 P. v. Prezzy CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, A147064 v. RAYMOND PREZZY, (Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR311609) Defendant and Appellant.

Raymond Prezzy (appellant) appeals from his post-jury trial conviction and sentence for one count of grand theft by embezzlement (Pen. Code,1 487, subd. (a)). Appellant’s counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised, and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has declared that appellant has been notified that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal, and that an independent review under Wende instead was being requested. Appellant was also advised of his right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this court’s attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by appellant personally. Procedural and Material Factual Background An amended criminal complaint was filed on June 30, 2015, by the Solano County District Attorney charging appellant with one count of grand theft by embezzlement

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.

1

(§ 487, subd. (a)), with the allegation that the violation was not discovered until August 23, 2011. Appellant pleaded not guilty to this charge on June 30, 2015. An information charging the same offense and making the same allegation of discovery was subsequently filed on July 7, 2015.2 A demurrer to the charge was filed by appellant contending that count one was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. That demurrer ultimately was heard on August 19, 2015, and overruled. In doing so, the trial court determined that the four-year statute of limitations set forth in section 801.5 applied to the charged crime, and the amended complaint and subsequent information which alleged that the embezzlement was not discovered until August 2011 was legally sufficient. A two-day jury trial was held in October 2015. The evidence presented at trial included the following: The victim, Valencia Goodings (Goodings), testified that she first met appellant at Geovera Holdings, Inc., a property and casualty insurance company where she was employed, in 2006 or 2007. Appellant had been hired as a temporary employee in accounts receivable and the two interacted all day long on a daily basis. Appellant was later given a job offer for a permanent position with Geovera. At some point appellant told Goodings that he was interested in starting his own business “flipping” real estate. Goodings expressed interest in this potential new venture. After appellant left Geovera, he met with Goodings to talk about his business. He explained to her that he would flip properties and put the net proceeds into a real estate Roth IRA for investors. They met again on September 23, 2007. During that meeting, Goodings told appellant that her goals were to pay off the second mortgage on her home, and to accumulate an emergency fund to help them in the event either she or her husband suddenly became unemployed. Goodings testified that appellant told her that the real estate Roth IRA was a good vehicle to meet these goals. He showed her some potential 2 The discovery allegation was included to meet the statute of limitations, which is four years from discovery or from when discovery would reasonably have occurred.