People v. Bradford CA4/2 ( 2021 )

Filed 2/2/21 P. v. Bradford CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E074048
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1602493)
DEIRDRICK EUGENE BRADFORD, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Bernard Schwartz, Judge.
Affirmed.
Larenda R. Delaini, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
I
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Deirdrick Eugene Bradford stole over $13,000 from a
small hardware store. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of felony grand
theft (Pen. Code,1 § 487, subd. (a)). In a bifurcated proceeding, defendant admitted that
he had suffered a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). After the trial court denied
defendant’s motion to reduce the offense to a misdemeanor, the court sentenced
defendant to the middle term of two years split, with one year in county jail and one year
on mandatory supervision pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (h).2 The trial court
awarded defendant four days of presentence custody credits, and, over defense counsel’s
objection, imposed various fines and fees. The court also ordered defendant to pay
$13,136 in victim restitution.
Defendant appeals from the judgment. Appointed appellate counsel filed an
opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case, outlines the issues appellate counsel
considered, and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any
arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende); Anders v.
California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders).) Based on our independent review of the
record, we find no arguable issue and affirm the judgment.
1 All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
2 The trial court also imposed and stayed an additional year for the prior prison
term allegation. In a resentencing hearing to correct sentencing errors, the trial court later
dismissed the prior prison term allegation under Senate Bill No. 136.
2
II
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. The People’s Case
In 2014, Dale Gardner was the owner and president of Sunnymead Ace Hardware
and, at times, conducted business with government agencies. When he conducted such
business, he would complete paperwork to set up the account and, after doing so, the
agency would provide him with a purchase order. The process varied from governmental
agency to agency, but Gardner typically received payment within 30 to 90 days.
Sometimes Gardner received orders from third parties purchasing on behalf of a
government agency.
The first time Gardner met defendant, who owned India Beauty, defendant sought
to purchase 1,000 rolls of electrical tape for Caltrans. Gardner had not previously
conducted business with Caltrans. Defendant informed Gardner that he had been
awarded a contract and was the purchasing agent for Caltrans. Gardner had never dealt
with a purchasing agent. Rather, he had dealt with employees at the government agency.
Defendant provided Gardner a seller’s permit, which allowed defendant, as a wholesaler,
to tax the final entity, rather than having each purchaser pay a sales tax. Gardner
eventually gave defendant the 30 or 40 rolls of electrical tape he had in stock and the
remaining rolls about two days later. Defendant paid for the electrical tape with a check,
dated October 6, 2014. Gardner deposited the check two days later, without a problem.
3
Sometime in November 2014, defendant obtained another purchase order request
from Caltrans for paper towels, pallets of concrete, and safety glasses, and contacted
Gardner to see if he could fulfill the order. Caltrans had agreed to pay up to $17,956.08
total, $16,000 pre-tax, for the items. Gardner researched the items for about one week to
verify he could make an adequate profit on the order. The purchase was one of the
largest orders that Gardner had filled, and he needed to special order most of the items.
He ultimately quoted defendant $13,136, which allowed Gardner to make a $1,500 profit.
Defendant accepted the quote three or four days later.
On November 28, 2014, defendant gave Gardner a check from his India Beauty
company in the amount of $13,136 for the items. However, by the time Gardner noticed
the check was not signed and could not be deposited, defendant had already left the store.
On December 15, 2014, defendant picked up the materials with his own truck and
staff and gave Gardner a signed check in the amount of $13,136. Defendant told Gardner
to hold the check for a few weeks, until the funds were available from Caltrans. Such a
payment arrangement was uncommon to Gardner, but he agreed to hold the check.
On January 8, 2015, without any further contact with defendant, Gardner
deposited the check. Four days later, on January 12, Gardner received a letter from his
bank, indicating there were insufficient funds to cover the payment. Gardner thereafter
sent defendant a text message regarding the situation. Defendant responded that he was
out of state. About one week later, Gardner called defendant. Defendant stated he was
out of state, and added that his partners must have withdrawn the money, which he would
4
check when he returned to town. Defendant also informed Gardner that he would pay
him back but did not state when. For about two months thereafter, Gardner called
defendant approximately 20 times from different phone numbers to no avail. Gardner
never spoke with defendant or anyone from India Beauty again and never received
payment from defendant for the picked up items.
Larry Vietti, a manager with Caltrans responsible for maintenance support and
fleet optimization in Orange County, had experience working with purchase orders.
When purchasing items for Caltrans, Vietti explained that employees submitted a detailed
description of the items needed and sent it to various vendors for bidding. Once the bids
were received, the employee had to select the lowest bid and, depending on the cost, a
supervisor completed a purchase request. The purchase request then went through
budgeting for approval and, once approved, the supervisor could receive a purchase order
from headquarters.
Vietti reviewed a purchase order from November 2014 concerning India Beauty.
The bid was for $16,626, and India Beauty represented that it would not use
subcontractors. Caltrans paid India Beauty for the contract amount of $17,956.08. The
contract was awarded on November 18, 2014.
Gardner eventually contacted law enforcement, and in December 2015, Riverside
County Sheriff’s Department Detective David Drexler investigated the matter.
Detective Drexler served a search warrant on Comerica Bank, seeking to obtain account
information for defendant and India Beauty. Detective Drexler learned that India
5
Beauty’s account was created on September 5, 2014, and closed sometime in May 2015.
The average monthly balance was between negative $8 and negative $335. The ending
balance was $340. The only time the account had close to $13,000 was in January 2015,
and the balance carried for only three days.
The January 2015 bank statement showed that someone had made a $17,956.08
deposit on January 2, 2015, with money from the State of California. Defendant’s name
and driver’s license number was used to make at least one withdrawal the same day the
check was deposited. The January 2015 statement also revealed a $9,414 withdrawal,
and then a combination of withdrawals totaling $9,000, leaving the account with a
negative balance of $273.53. By January 5, 2015, the account did not have enough
money to cover the purchase from Gardner. The account was zeroed out in June 2015.
Defendant had a prior incident involving fraud in 2010, after he moved into a
vacant home without the owner’s consent and refused to leave. The homeowner
contacted law enforcement and began eviction proceedings. When an officer contacted
defendant, he provided the officer with a rental agreement. The officer saw a female at
the home, along with children. The homeowner was nearby and appeared “shocked.”
The homeowner denied creating or signing the rental agreement and noted defendant and
the others had lived at the property rent-free for six months to one year.
B. Defense Case
Defendant and one other person started India Beauty to sell hair extensions to
women. The business strictly operated on a cash-only basis. India Beauty thus did not
6
have a bank account. Sometime in 2014, India Beauty started doing business with
Caltrans, and in September 2014, defendant opened an account at Comerica Bank. When
defendant became a vendor for the State, he started with small contracts, between $600
and $800, because he did not have enough money to accept larger contracts. Defendant
completed about six small transactions with Caltrans between September 5, 2014, and
October 6, 2014.
At some point, defendant spoke with Gardner about becoming a potential supplier.
He went to Gardner after other suppliers, including Home Depot, turned him down.
Defendant acknowledged the first transaction with Gardner for 1,000 rolls of electrical
tape. He noted that he had received the rolls of tape and paid Gardner with a check for
the tape.
Defendant also acknowledged the second transaction with Gardner and explained
that he went to Gardner to see if they could put together a lower bid than already received
by Caltrans and obtain the contract. Initially, Gardner quoted defendant $4,500 over the
phone. Defendant believed the bid “was, like, too cheap,” but he accepted it anyway.
Defendant then made the bid to Caltrans, won the contract, and stood to make about
$10,000 in profit.
Caltrans later rejected some of the safety glasses because they were not dark
enough, and defendant returned to Gardner to obtain different glasses. Gardner gave
defendant sample glasses, which defendant provided to Caltrans for approval. Caltrans
eventually selected a more expensive pair of safety glasses, requiring defendant to
7
provide another bid. Gardner quoted defendant $7,500 for all of the materials, including
the replacement safety glasses. When all of the materials were ready, defendant rented a
U-haul truck, picked up the materials from Gardner, and delivered the items to Caltrans
in two separate deliveries. Defendant told Gardner he could add to the cost to build in
profit for himself. Defendant also planned to pay Gardner a little extra out of pocket.
Sometime after the second delivery, defendant claimed that Gardner called him to
let him know that he had made a mistake when pricing the safety glasses and that the new
price for everything was $13,000. Gardner’s call came about three hours after he and
defendant had discussed what type of money they could make on Caltrans contracts and
after defendant showed Gardner a $300,000 purchase order from Caltrans. Defendant
also claimed that someone from India Beauty left a blank check with Gardner, at
Gardner’s request, because Gardner wanted collateral. Gardner later called defendant
and said he would feel better with a signed check. Defendant’s secretary thereafter filled
out another check, leaving the amount blank. The amount was left blank because
defendant and Gardner had not agreed on the price and defendant planned to pay Gardner
in cash.
After India Beauty received payment from Caltrans, defendant paid his employees,
leaving him with about $9,000. He offered to give Gardner $7,500 because Gardner
raised the price after the materials had already been delivered. Defendant believed
Gardner raised the price only because he saw how much profit defendant would make.
8
When Gardner declined to do additional transactions with defendant, India Beauty went
out of business, despite defendant trying to keep the business going.
Defendant explained that he was in Arizona when Gardner called and said the
check had not cleared. Defendant was driving and did not have clear reception on his cell
phone. He could not recall telling Gardner that he would look into things when he
returned to California. Defendant acknowledged that he still owed money to Gardner,
but Gardner had declined the $7,500 offer. Defendant attempted to get other Caltrans
contracts, but they all fell through.
Defendant intended to pay for the materials he received from Gardner, but
Gardner wanted $13,000, which defendant did not have. Defendant acknowledged that
he spoke with a detective in April 2016. He thought he mentioned the price discrepancies
when he spoke with the detective but did not recall telling the detective that Caltrans
never paid him.
C. The People’s Rebuttal
Detective Drexler explained that he spoke with defendant on April 20, 2016, and
that he recorded the conversation. During the conversation, defendant, who was driving a
truck in Washington state at the time, indicated that he had a business relationship with
Gardner, but did not pay Gardner because defendant did not get all his money from
Caltrans. Defendant’s secretary wrote Sunnymead Ace Hardware a check, but Gardner
knew that he was not supposed to deposit the check. Defendant claimed that something
went wrong between him and Caltrans and that Caltrans never paid him. When
9
Detective Drexler informed defendant that Caltrans paid him more than $17,000,
defendant asserted he would have his lawyer call Detective Drexler. Nonetheless,
defendant maintained that he had not done anything wrong and stated, “bad business
happened,” causing Sunnymead to not get paid. Defendant averred that he planned to
pay Gardner when he received his income tax payment.
III
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to
represent him on appeal. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a
summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to conduct
an independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he
has not done so.
An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the
record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in
reversal or modification of the judgment. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442;
People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; see
People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)
10
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error
that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
IV
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
SLOUGH
J.
11