(Super. Ct. No. 62-077263)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Blease , Acting P. J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant Lars U. Aspenlind appeals from his convictions for offering a false or forged instrument for filing or recording in a public office (Pen. Code, § 115, subd. (a)) and burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459).*fn1 On appeal, defendant contends: 1) his conviction is flawed as there was no indictment by a grand jury; 2) the trial court improperly denied his demurrer; 3) his due process rights were violated as he was not informed of the nature of the charges against him; 4) a civil judgment was included in his criminal proceeding; and 5) the trial court failed to follow the rule of stare decisis. Finding no error on these points, we will affirm.
In November 2007, defendant was driving his Cadillac DeVille in Roseville when he was stopped by Officer Azevedo. During the course of that traffic stop, Officers Azevedo and Wolters determined that defendant's vehicle had to be towed. Officer Wolters was made responsible for that task. One of the forms Wolters completed relative to that task was a form which included his name.
On December 18, 2007, defendant filed and had recorded a UCC-1 form at the Placer County clerk recorder's office. A UCC-1 form is "a document representing a finance agreement between a debtor and a secured party." The form listed Wolters, as the debtor, his home as the property securing the lien and defendant as the secured party. The amount of the lien against the property was $24,300.
A few days later, Wolters arrived at his home and found an envelope at his home which contained documentation from the defendant indicating that there was a lien against the residence. Later, Wolters received the same documentation in the mail. He gave all the material to Roseville detectives.
At no point had Wolters, or the co-owner of the property, ever purchased anything from defendant, borrowed any money from him, provided defendant the right to secure collateral against the property, or taken any action giving defendant any legal interest in their home.
Following a preliminary hearing, defendant was charged by way of information with offering a false or forged instrument for filing or recording in a public office (§ 115, subd. (a)) and burglary (§ 459). It was further alleged the filing of the false document affected title or placed an encumbrance on a single-family residence. (§ 115.5)
Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty on both charges and the enhancement allegation was found true. Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on five years' probation, including a "disciplinary sentence of 120 days in County Jail, with credit for three days served." The disciplinary term ...