People v. Traver CA3

Filed 10/14/20 P. v. Traver CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C090087

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 18CM00075)

v.

DONALD EUGENE TRAVER,

Defendant and Appellant.

This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we affirm. BACKGROUND We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 123-124.) The People’s second amended information alleged that defendant Donald Eugene Traver had committed one count of theft from an elder (Pen. Code., § 368, subd. (d)).1

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

At trial, the People presented evidence that the victim, E.P., was then 73 years old. E.P. hired defendant to be her gardener following the death of her husband. They developed a friendship, and when E.P. became partially disabled while recovering from surgery, she relied upon defendant to buy groceries with her credit card, pick up her mail, and drive her places. E.P. never asked for receipts and did not know anything was wrong until police stopped her car one day, inquiring about the expired registration tags, which she knew she had paid for. When E.P. reviewed her bank account, she discovered numerous unauthorized charges, including fast food purchases, cash withdrawals, and a veterinary bill for approximately $300. E.P. reported the unauthorized use to the authorities, who instructed her to audit her accounts. Documents gathered by E.P. showed $27,210 in unauthorized activity between December 11, 2015, and October 11, 2017. Authorities conducted a warrant search of defendant’s home and discovered a veterinary bill that had been paid with E.P.’s credit card. Defendant returned as authorities were finishing the search, and he agreed to come to the station the next day to answer questions. Defendant told authorities that he had permission to use E.P.’s credit card and that he had paid for the veterinary bill himself. E.P. denied giving defendant permission to use her credit card for any veterinary expenses. E.P. obtained a new credit card and had no further problems. At trial, defendant testified that he helped E.P. take care of her cat by purchasing litter with his own money and regularly cleaning out the litter box. He also asserted that the management company for the mobile home park asked him to help care for E.P.’s yard and added the cost of that maintenance to her rent. Defendant also would retrieve her prescriptions and pick up her cigarettes, which had to be purchased with cash. Defendant denied that E.P.’s credit card was used to pay the veterinarian or that he ever took money from E.P. without her permission.