People v. Varon

Opinion

ARABIAN, J.— Introduction

Eddie James Varón appeals from the judgment entered (order granting probation) following a court trial that resulted in his conviction of embezzlement and falsification of accounts by a public officer (Pen. Code, § 424, subd. 1), grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. 1) and falsification of public records (Gov. Code, § 6200). We affirm.

Contentions

“I. Appellant was illegally convicted in count I of violation Penal Code section 424.1 because the debts allegedly owed the County of Los Angeles were either barred by the statute of limitations or had been previously written off as uncollectible, therefore, no public monies within the meaning of Penal Code section 426 were embezzled.

“II. In the position held by appellant with the county he was not placed in charge of safeguarding, controlling, nor was he authorized to collect public [monies], therefore, his conviction of violating Penal Code section 424.1 should be reversed.

“III. Government Code section 6200, set forth in count III, explicitly concerns acts of an officer custodian, committing a theft, destroying or removing certain public documents, and since appellant was not such an officer, his conviction for violation of this section should be reversed.”

Statement of Facts

Viewed according to the usual rule governing appellate review (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578 [162 Cal.Rptr. 431, 606 P.2d 738, 16 [1166]A.L.RAth 1255]), the evidence established that appellant was employed by the Department of Collections for the County of Los Angeles during January 1984.1 He was assigned to work on a special project which had as its goal the collection of previously uncollectible accounts.

In February 1984, demand letters were mailed to thousands of delinquent account holders whose debts were legally uncollectible due to the running of the statute of limitations or unenforceable for other reasons.

Appellant’s job was to interview account holders who responded to the letters and determine how much of their debts, if any, they could pay. Appellant had the authority to arrange installment payment plans, or to negotiate compromise agreements by accepting partial payment of amounts due as payment in full, subject to the approval of his supervisor.