P. v. Adamian
Filed 6/15/06 P. v. Adamian CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALINA ADAMIAN, Defendant and Appellant. | G035899 (Super. Ct. No. 03HF0247) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Carla Singer, Judge. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Sharon M. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Robert M. Foster, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Alina Adamian contends the court erred by imposing consecutive sentences on her convictions for making false financial statements and grand theft. The Attorney General concedes the error, acknowledging the two offenses furthered the same criminal objective. We concur. Thus, we affirm the judgment of conviction, but reverse and remand for resentencing.
FACTS
A jury convicted defendant on four counts of identity theft (Pen. Code, § 530.5),[1] one count of making false financial statements (§ 532a, subd. (1)), and one count of grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a)). The relevant counts here are counts 1 (making false statements), count 2 (one of the identity theft counts), and count 3 (the grand theft count). All three arose from defendant's submission of a forged loan application to an insurance company, by which she obtained a $267,000 loan against a life insurance policy belonging to one of her employer's customers.
The jury also found true allegations supporting two sentence enhancements. It found defendant committed a pattern of related fraudulent felony conduct involving the taking of more than $100,000 (§ 186.11, subd. (a)), and took property exceeding $150,000 while committing a felony (§ 12022.6, subd. (a)(2)).
The court sentenced defendant to a total term of seven years, eight months in state prison. It sentenced her to the upper term of three years on count 3, grand theft, plus a two-year enhancement for taking property exceeding $150,000 while committing a felony. It further sentenced defendant to a consecutive eight-month term (one-third the midterm) for count 1, making false financial statements. It further imposed three consecutive eight-month terms (one-third the midterm) for three of the identity theft counts. It stayed sentencing on count 2, one of the identity theft counts, finding it was based on the same criminal act as count 1. (§ 654.) The court also struck the sentence enhancement for committing a pattern of related fraudulent felony conduct involving the taking of more than $100,000.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends the court should have stayed sentencing on count 1, the identify theft count arising from the forged loan application. She notes, â€
