P. v. Tucker CA2/8

Filed 3/5/13 P. v. Tucker CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

B240236 THE PEOPLE, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA353803) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

FREDERICK TUCKER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William N. Sterling, Judge. Affirmed.

Tanya Dellaca, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________

This is an appeal from the trial court’s restitution orders following defendant Frederick Tucker’s no contest plea. His plea was the subject of an earlier appeal, case No. B237866, which was dismissed by this court for failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).) Defendant’s appellate counsel has asked this court to take judicial notice of the record in that case for purposes of determining the procedural history and facts underlying defendant’s conviction. We grant the motion and take judicial notice of the appellate record in defendant’s earlier appeal. (Evid. Code, § 452.) According to the preliminary hearing transcript, defendant made various misrepresentations to induce consumers to refinance their homes. He collected application and appraisal fees, and had customers sign cancellation agreements, requiring them to pay a fee to his company in the event that the customer did not proceed with the loan. Customers cancelled loan applications when the loans were not timely processed, or when it was discovered that the loans’ actual terms differed from what was promised by defendant. Defendant and his company then sued customers to collect the cancellation fees. All of this was done in violation of a permanent injunction obtained by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office on June 22, 2000, prohibiting defendant from engaging in this kind of conduct. On July 14, 2010, defendant was charged by an 17-count amended information1 with grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a); counts 1-3, 6-10, 18) and attempted grand theft (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 487, subd. (a); counts 5, 11-17). On May 24, 2011, defendant withdrew his not guilty plea and pled no contest with a Harvey2 waiver to three additional counts, which were added to the information by interlineation, for felony violations of Business and Professions Code section 17511.9 (counts 19-21). Defendant was sentenced to five years formal probation, 270 days in jail, and was ordered to make