People v. Silveira CA5

Filed 3/18/22 P. v. Silveira CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F081030 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF58881) v.

JOSIAH DAVID SILVEIRA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. Donald I. Segerstrom, Jr., Judge. John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Carlos A. Martinez and Jeffrey D. Firestone, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

Appellant Josiah David Silveira was convicted following a jury trial of seven counts of identity theft (Pen. Code,1 § 530.5, subd. (a); counts I, VII, XI, XIII, XVI, XVIII & XX ); four counts of forgery related to identity theft (§ 470, subd. (d); counts II, VIII, XII & XIV); four counts of forgery relating to a check not exceeding $950 in value (§ 470, subd. (a); counts XVII, XIX, XXI & XXII); two counts of conspiracy to commit shoplifting, forgery, and/or identity theft (§ 182, subd. (a)(1); counts X & XXIII); and four counts of misdemeanor shoplifting (§ 459.5, subd. (a); counts III, VI, IX & XV). He admitted to suffering two strike priors (§ 667, subds. (b)-(j)). The court sentenced him to an aggregate prison term of 12 years. Appellant appeals from the judgment, contending the trial court violated his federal and state due process rights and section 654 by failing to stay sentence on count XI because it was one of the objects of the conspiracy charged in count X. Finding no error, we affirm. GENERAL FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Between the period of October 26, 2018 and October 31, 2018, appellant presented fraudulent checks purported to be from local businesses made payable to himself to store clerks in exchange for items from the store and cash, obtaining approximately $200 to $500 in cash and goods per transaction. On two of these occasions, appellant entered the store with a coparticipant who each passed a fraudulent check made payable to themselves. Law enforcement performed a search of appellant’s vehicle. Inside the vehicle, law enforcement found three computer printers, a laptop computer, a black ink cartridge for the computer printer, “hundreds of” sheets of blank check paper, numerous fraudulent checks from three local businesses, and checks reported stolen from one of the local business’s mailbox.