A True Black Friday for this Felon

This Black Friday when you are pushing, shoving, jumping, and committing other Olympic feats to get to the hot-ticket items, remember this story and purchase extra security for your new “toys.” This Friday is a dark, dark Friday for a 22-year-old San Pedro man who is in custody for residential burglary. Detectives tracked him down using the “Lojack for Laptops” software on the laptops he stole from a Rancho Palos Verdes home.

It seems that this San Pedro man decided he just couldn’t wait for Black Friday deals and took matters into his own hands. He was identified as an unlicensed contractor who had done work at the victim’s home two months earlier. The security software was able to gather personal information, including his name and photograph once he logged into the computer. Now, that is pretty crafty of modern technology.

The article states that the police were able to convince him to bring the laptop to the Lomita Sherriff’s station, where he was then promptly arrested. Now, let me just make it clear what this means. The Sherriff’s officers are not brilliant negotiators; when an article says any officer “convinced” a defendant to come down to the station it means one of two things. The officer lied to the defendant somehow, prompting the defendant to head over to the station; or the officer threatened the defendant with arrest if he didn’t cooperate. Sometimes, there is a combination of both.

Earlier in our Friday series, I spoke about commercial burglary. The San Pedro man allegedly stole from a residence making the crime here residential burglary. Residential burglary is the more serious of the two types. A defendant commits residential burglary if he burgles any inhabited dwelling - a place where someone lives or sleeps. A dwelling is "inhabited" if it is used for dwelling purposes, whether or not it is currently occupied. A prosecutor has to prove that the defendant entered the dwelling and that, at the time he entered; he had the intent to steal.

Again, there is the sticky situation of “intent.” Any good defense attorney will latch on to this element, especially in this laptop case. Absent any other evidence, it's just as likely that the San Pedro man didn't form the intent to steal until after he was already inside the home. This is a prime case for theft, not residential burglary because when a defendant formed the intent to steal is the key difference between burglary and theft.

In this case, the prosecution is really going to have to nail down a timeframe for the defendant’s action. The prosecution will need to show something more than just his possession of the laptop. This is because he had a legitimate intent as he entered the home – work – and without more it is too much of a stretch to place intent to steal on him.

If he is convicted of first degree residential burglary, he faces two, four, or six years in the California State Prison and a maximum fine of $10,000. California Penal Code 462 instructs the judge not to issue a probationary sentence if he was convicted of burglarizing an inhabited structure unless it is an "unusual case where the interests of justice would be best served by doing so". Here, if the prosecution doesn’t reduce the charge to theft, then a judge should grant probation. This is because this is not a typical residential burglary – not at night, not with weapons, and not a “break in.” Either way, the San Pedro man faces a strike on his record.

This is an unfortunately black Friday for the San Pedro man. He really should have waited for the shopping deals on Black Friday. Instead, is in custody without bail because of his immigration status. However, this is an important Thanksgiving lesson – be thankful for modern technology and make sure to equip your important electronic toys with security software.

You can read the story of the Rancho Palos Verdes laptops stolen by the San Pedro man here.

Friday Favorite Flirty Criminals

This week’s favorite is about a flirty but dangerous mother-daughter team. This mother daughter duo allegedly conned a 90-year-old El Segundo man to give them $20,000 and to buy them a Mercedes-Benz. Police believe this duo likes to run cons and take advantage of elderly people. The mother was arrested this week, but the daughter remains at large, so be careful who you flirt with this weekend at the bars. The 29-year-old daughter is known to frequent areas in and around Harbor City, Downey, and Riverside.

The 90-year-old man was also conned into buying the duo a $2,000 mattress. They would also take him into banks, and tell him what to do, in order to get their money. The mother-daughter team was discovered after employees at an El Segundo Bank of America considered it suspicious that a 90-year-old man said he was withdrawing money to give it to someone but couldn’t remember their names.

The duo are facing charges for felony elder abuse and felony conspiracy to commit elder abuse. California "elder abuse" law covers a variety of crimes and can occur in a variety of situations. In this situation, elder abuse will be alleged to be in the form of financial fraud. It is considered “elder abuse” when it is directed at anyone over 65 years of age. The Los Angeles District Attorney's Elder Abuse Unit only prosecutes allegations of financial elder abuse if the monetary amount reportedly taken is either in the "thousands of dollars" range or involved a very sophisticated level of fraud or theft. Well, too bad for this mother-daughter team. They should have aimed low…..or not have defrauded an elderly man to begin with. ;)

Simply put, financial elder abuse is the theft or embezzlement of money or other property from an elder. This type of senior fraud is penalized in California Penal Code sections 368(d) and 368(e). In order to convict a defendant of senior fraud, the prosecutor must prove the following facts: 1) that defendant committed a "financial" crime (that is, theft, fraud, forgery, or embezzlement), 2) that the property involved in the crime belonged to an elder, and 3) in this case, that defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the individual was an elder.

The mother-daughter duo is going to face an uphill battle in their defense. It appears that the 90-year-old man is a very confused man. He doesn’t remember giving away that much money or even purchasing those expensive vehicles.

As for the conspiracy charge, a criminal conspiracy takes place when one agrees with one or more other people to commit a crime, and one of them commits an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. Any member of the conspiracy may commit the overt act which doesn't need to be criminal in and of itself. The act does need to be performed before the commission of the agreed upon offense. Maybe the daughter can argue that she never agreed with her mom to fraud this old man. She was just a victim of her mom too; she should utilize many available defenses to conspiracy.

Some of these defenses include: there was no agreement, there was no overt act, she withdrew from the conspiracy, she operated under a mistake of law, or she was falsely accused. Again, it will be tough for prosecutors to prove an agreement between mother and daughter. This will be especially tough if the daughter was never seen at any of the banks or the car dealership.

If they are convicted of committing felony conspiracy to commit elder abuse they face the same penalties that are imposed in connection with that felony. If convicted of felony senior fraud (“elder abuse”), they face the following penalties: formal probation; two, three, or four years in the California State Prison; and a maximum $10,000 fine.

In conclusion, that must have been some intense flirting by the duo with the elderly man. They got him to give them thousands of dollars in cash and gifts! Whether you are young or old, beware of these two.