Defendant appealed a judgment from the Superior Court of Shasta County (California), which, in a jury trial, convicted defendant of multiple counts of forgery, identity theft, and other offenses.
Defendant used blank checks, credit cards, and identifying information unlawfully taken from a victim to obtain cash and to purchase items. She also used another victim's credit cards and used the other victim's driver's license as identification during some transactions. The court held that defendant was properly convicted of two violations of Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a), for two uses of the driver's license on separate occasions because each separate use constituted a new crime. Defendant also was properly convicted of violating both Pen. Code, § 470, subd. (d), and Pen. Code, § 484f, subd. (b), for one act of forging a signature to a charge card receipt because § 484f, subd. (b), was not a necessarily included offense of § 470, subd. (d). Because the California false claims act evidence showed that defendant possessed both the checks of one victim and a credit card of the other victim at about the same time, this amounted to only one offense of receiving stolen property under Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a). Defendant's failure to object to asserted instructional errors waived the issue on appeal, and the court declined to consider an ineffective assistance claim because defendant's argument was inadequate. The court reversed the judgment as to one count of receiving stolen property and one count of possession of a forged item, affirmed as to all other counts, stayed the sentences on four counts resulting in a reduction of defendant's aggregate sentence, and directed the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment accordingly. Petitioner, an international corporation, sought review of an order of respondent Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which denied its motion to quash the service of summons effected by a copy of the summons and complaint being mailed to petitioner's head office in Japan. Petitioner international corporation was mailed a copy of a summons and complaint to its head office in Japan in an action alleging the negligence in a helmet of a corporation which had merged into petitioner. The trial court denied petitioner's motion to quash the service, and the court denied a petition for peremptory writ. The court held that petitioner had sufficient contacts with the state for in personam jurisdiction because the helmet was found in channels of retail trade, the merged corporation had a representative in the state, and the representative promoted the sales of petitioner. The court held that service was perfected because Japanese law permitted transmission by mail, a multilateral international convention did not prevent the state's exercise of jurisdiction where the trial court had jurisdiction, and notice had been given by mail with a receipt for delivery. The court held that due process was not violated by the service being written in English because testimony declared that Japanese companies involved in trade with other countries corresponded in English, petitioner executed a postal receipt written in English and French, and petitioner had English brochures. The court denied a petition for a peremptory writ, holding that the service of process to petitioner international corporation was perfected because petitioner had sufficient contacts with the state for in personam jurisdiction, international law permitted transmission by mail, and there was evidence to support the conclusion that petitioner had actual notice although service was written in English.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
May 2023
Categories |