P. v. Ko
Filed 2/25/13 P. v. Ko CA6
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
SIXTH
APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
ELLEN WAISUM KO,
Defendant and
Appellant.
H038449
(Santa Clara
County
Super. Ct.
No. B1156428)
After
walking out of a Neiman Marcus retail store with a $1,195 Theory brand leather jacket stuffed in her purse,
defendant, Ellen Waisum Ko was detained by store security. When asked by security why she had taken the
jacket without paying, defendant responded “I’m a pirate.†The Santa Clara County District Attorney
charged defendant with one count of grand theft of personal property of a value
over $950, a violation of Penal Code, section 484-487, subdivision (a).
During a jury trial, a number of
loss prevention officers from other stores testified that defendant had stolen
merchandise from their stores in the past.
After being apprehended on those prior occasions, defendant had stated
either that she was a “pirate,†or that she wanted the item and did not want to
pay for it. In relation to this evidence
of prior offenses, the trial court offered a limiting instruction to the
jury. The court instructed that the
evidence was being admitted for a
limited purpose. Not to show a
predisposition to commit theft, or the offense that she was currently charged
with, but only to show intent, absence of mistake or accident, or common plan
or scheme. Defendant took the
stand in her own defense and admitted to taking the merchandise. She claimed that she was taking the
merchandise as a protest of the poor conditions in garment factories around the
world. The jury found appellant guilty
of the sole offense. The court placed
defendant on two years formal probation, on the condition she serve 180 days in
county jail. The court awarded her 156
total days credit for time served.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on June 18, 2012.
On appeal, appointed counsel filed
an opening brief which states the
case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit
written argument in her own behalf within 30 days. Thirty days have elapsed and we have received
nothing from the defendant. Pursuant to
our obligation as set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we
have reviewed the record but have found no arguable issues on appeal. Therefore, we will affirm the judgment.
Disposition
The
judgment is affirmed.
_____________________________________
rushing, P.J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________________
PREMO, J.
_________________________________
ELIA, J.
