P. v. Monteverde
After trial, a jury convicted defendant Jose Monteverde of three counts of forging or uttering three forged checks, a $400.00 check dated March 5, 2004, another check for $400.00 dated June 30, 2004, and a $300.00 check dated July 21, 2004 (counts 2, 3, 4, respectively; Pen. Code, 470, subd. (d)) and one count of taking property worth more than $400 from Margaret Garlock, a person 65 or older, by forgery, fraud, or theft. (Count 1; 368, subd. (d).) The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for three years, on conditions, among others, that he serve six months in jail and not work for elderly or disabled persons.
On appeal, defendant essentially asserts that he was convicted under the wrong subdivisions, that the prosecution really proved violations of section 368, subdivision (e), not (d), and of section 470, subdivision (a), not (d). He also claims that he was prejudiced by the introduction of numerous ATM withdrawals by the victim and that the theft conviction should be stayed under section 654. For the reasons stated below, we will find no prejudicial error and will affirm the judgment. By separate order filed concurrently with this opinion, we will dispose of defendants petition for writ of habeas corpus asserting that both his trial attorneys were incompetent.
Comments on P. v. Monteverde