Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Lo

P. v. Lo

Filed 2/14/08 P. v. Lo CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

ALBERTO LIM LO,

Defendant and Appellant.

B199177

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. SA058924)

THE COURT:^*

Alberto Lim Lo (appellant) appeals from the order entered following a jury trial that resulted in his conviction of grand theft by embezzlement in violation of Penal Code section 487, subdivision (a).^{^[1]} Appellant was an employee of Inconen Temporary Services (ITS) for five or six years until he was terminated on September 28, 2005. ITS, an employment agency, provided temporary employees to aerospace companies such as Boeing. Appellant was responsible for accounts receivable. He submitted invoices to Boeing and instructed ITSs payroll department to issue checks to its employees provided by ITS to Boeing. From 2004 through 2005, appellant instructed two employees who had received overpayments for travel expenses to submit blank checks to him. One employee submitted three checks for $3,796, $3,817.46, and $2,105.74. Another employee, pursuant to instructions by appellant, sent blank checks to appellant for overpayments on several occasions. It was stipulated at trial that appellant cashed the checks sent to him by the employees. Appellant did not have permission to receive blank checks for travel expense overpayments or cash them.

Appellant was found guilty of grand theft by embezzlement as noted above. Imposition of sentence was suspended and appellant was placed on three years probation with the condition that he spend one year in county jail.

We appointed counsel to represent him on this appeal.

After examination of the record, counsel filed a Statement by Counsel on Appeal Pursuant to People v. Wendein which no issues were raised.

On November 26, 2007, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellants attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

The judgment (order granting probation) is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line Lawyers.

^* BOREN, P. J., ASHMANN-GERST, J., CHAVEZ, J.

^{^[1]} All subsequent code section references are to the Penal Code.

Description	Alberto Lim Lo (appellant) appeals from the order entered following a jury trial that resulted in his conviction of grand theft by embezzlement in violation of Penal Code section 487, subdivision (a).[1] Appellant was an employee of Inconen Temporary Services (ITS) for five or six years until he was terminated on September 28, 2005. ITS, an employment agency, provided temporary employees to aerospace companies such as Boeing. Appellant was responsible for accounts receivable. He submitted invoices to Boeing and instructed ITSs payroll department to issue checks to its employees provided by ITS to Boeing. From 2004 through 2005, appellant instructed two employees who had received overpayments for travel expenses to submit blank checks to him. One employee submitted three checks for $3,796, $3,817.46, and $2,105.74. Another employee, pursuant to instructions by appellant, sent blank checks to appellant for overpayments on several occasions. It was stipulated at trial that appellant cashed the checks sent to him by the employees. Appellant did not have permission to receive blank checks for travel expense overpayments or cash them. Appellant was found guilty of grand theft by embezzlement as noted above. Imposition of sentence was suspended and appellant was placed on three years probation with the condition that he spend one year in county jail. The judgment (order granting probation) is affirmed.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.