People v. Prantil

• Decision Date: 24 June 1985
• Citation: 169 Cal.App.3d 592,215 Cal.Rptr. 372
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Frank G. PRANTIL, Defendant and Appellant. D000333. Crim. 15698.

Page 372

215 Cal.Rptr. 372

169 Cal.App.3d 592

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Frank G. PRANTIL, Defendant and Appellant.

D000333.

Crim. 15698.

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.

June 24, 1985.

Review Denied Oct. 3, 1985.

Eugene G. Iredale and Douglas Holbrook, San Diego, for defendant and appellant.

John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., and Jesus Rodriguez and M. Howard Wayne, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

WIENER, Acting Presiding Justice.

Frank G. Prantil appeals from the judgment after a jury convicted him of forgery by uttering or making use of a forged check under Penal Code section 470. ¹ Uttering requires a person pass or offer to pass a forged instrument with knowledge of the forgery and with the specific intent to defraud. (People v. Hellman (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 777, 778-779, 11 Cal.Rptr. 433.) The jury decided Prantil had the requisite criminal knowledge and intent when on September 4, 1981, he endorsed and deposited a stolen $53,500 check bearing the forged endorsement of Joanna F. McKnight into his trust account. We conclude substantial evidence supports the judgment and reject Prantil's arguments that pretrial delay and trial court errors denied him a fair trial. We affirm the judgment.

FACTS

Prantil's argument that there is insufficient evidence to support the judgment necessitates our examination of the entire record to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence such that a reasonable trier of fact could find Prantil guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 562, 162 Cal.Rptr. 431, 606 P.2d 738.) We state the facts in detail so that we might carefully analyze whether the evidence supporting the judgment is "of ponderable legal significance ... reasonable in nature, credible and of solid value [citation.]" (Id. at p. 576, 162 Cal.Rptr. 431, 606 P.2d 738.) In order to fully understand the facts as presented to the jury we believe it is helpful to divide our discussion into two parts separating the events of September 4, 1981, when Prantil passed the forged check from earlier events involving four forged trust deeds. Although Prantil was not charged with any crime pertaining to the trust deeds, evidence of his involvement with the persons who passed those documents was essential to establish the mental elements of the crime with which Prantil was charged, i.e. his knowledge the check was forged and his specific intent to defraud.

A

At the time of trial Prantil had practiced criminal law for about 20 years. He acted as his own lawyer in this case.

In the early part of 1981 Melvin Goins, one of Prantil's criminal clients introduced Prantil to Daryl Bell. Prantil testified that in either the latter part of July or August 1981 Bell asked Prantil to represent him on a charge of bank robbery. Prantil quoted an attorney's fee of $10,000. A few weeks later a woman purporting to be Bell's mother or sister telephoned Prantil and asked him to meet her in order to negotiate a $53,500 escrow check from which Prantil would receive his $10,000 fee. Prantil's testimony on where they first met is conflicting. At trial he admitted testifying before the grand jury that he and the woman first went to her bank where they were unable to cash the check. He testified at trial, however, he was only able to remember meeting the woman on September 4, 1981 at his bank, California First Bank, Casa de Oro Branch where he kept his trust account. The woman, a black, introduced herself as Joanna F. McKnight supposedly Bell's mother. She was between 40 and 45 years of age. Prantil accompanied the woman to a teller's window where he explained to teller Pam Vasquez that the woman was the mother of one of his clients and that as a favor he wanted to deposit the $53,500 check which was made payable to "Joanna F. McKnight." McKnight was to be the first endorser of the check and he was to be the second.

                McKnight signed the check and at Vasquez' request presented a California driver's license (N5705763) and a military I.D. card to [169 Cal.App.3d 598] establish her identity.  Vasquez did not notice McKnight spelled her name "McKinght."   The driver's license seemed to corroborate Vasquez' impression the woman was about 40.  At trial a certified copy of the same driver's license showed the correct identity of the licensee as Lois Fern Kerr a white woman.  When Vasquez saw the correct license she said the picture bore no resemblance to the person who endorsed the check
                

Prantil endorsed the check "Frank G. Prantil, Trust Account." Vasquez' supervisor Julie Stallone initialed the check and informed Prantil there would be a ten-day hold for collection. Neither Prantil nor the woman said anything about the possibility the check was not genuine.

On September 9, 1981, Joan Price, the owner of United Escrow discovered there were three checks missing from her office. She notified her bank the following day. She was informed one of the missing checks had been filled out for $53,500 and had been deposited into Prantil's account. Payment on the check was stopped.

Presumably Goins who had worked for a maintenance company with access to United Escrow had stolen the checks. Price testified the check had been prepared in her office by a thief using her typewriter, her check protector and a simulation of her signature.

The foregoing facts are essentially undisputed. Prantil does not challenge the likelihood the check was probably stolen by Goins, Price's signature was forged, and McKnight's name placed on the check as part of a criminal scheme to obtain funds. His disagreement is with his involvement in what occurred. At trial he steadfastly denied knowing anything about the events leading up to the theft of the check or its forgery. He testified:

"The check was put into my trust account for collection. I knew there was going to be a 10-day hold on the check, and I put it in there for two reasons. The first reason is I didn't know if the check was good or not. [p] Now I was representing Darrell [sic] Bell, and I knew Darrell [sic] Bell had been in trouble before. So I wasn't really vouching for anything that Darrell [sic] Bell had anything to do with. So I didn't know if the check was good or not. So I figured if I put it in my trust account for collection, if the check cleared then everything was fine. If the check didn't clear then no one would be harmed. So I put it into my trust account, not knowing if it was good or not. [p] I also put it in my trust account for the reason that I was to receive $10,000 out of the $53,500, and the balance was to be returned to Mrs. McKnight. Or, according to her instructions."

B

Evidence of Prantil's connection with four forged trust deeds was admitted as circumstantial evidence showing his knowledge and intent on September 4, 1981 when he negotiated the forged check. Prantil or someone in his office prepared the trust deeds. The upper left hand corner of each of the completed (and forged) trust deeds requested that after recording the trust deed was to be returned to Prantil's office.

Two of the trust deeds encumbered land owned by Mr. and Mrs. Travis Martin. The other trust deeds encumbered an adjoining parcel of land owned by Joanna F. McKnight. The Martin trust deeds dated December 8, 1980, and December 19, 1980 secured debts of $34,000 and $25,000 respectively. American Federal Financial (AFF) was the beneficiary of the $34,000 trust deed recorded December 17, 1980. Goins was the beneficiary of the $25,000 trust deed recorded January 6, 1981. Bell was the beneficiary of both McKnight trust deeds of $55,000 and $80,000 recorded on March 20, 1981, and March 27, 1981 respectively.

Goins and Bell had a simple plan. They forged trust deeds, named themselves or someone acting on their behalf as beneficiary and then sold the trust deeds pocketing The Martins retained attorney Jon McKinley to remove the cloud on their title caused by the liens of the forged trust deeds. McKinley examined the preliminary title report on his clients' property. That report noted the property was clear except for three trust deeds: the $34,000 AFF trust deed, the $25,000 Goins trust deed and the $55,000 trust deed in which McKnight was trustor and Bell the beneficiary. McKinley assumed the latter trust deed was a wild lien. He later determined the trust deed was on the report because an incorrect legal description included the McKnight property within the Martins' property. Since copies of the trust deeds contained Prantil's name as the person to whom the documents were to be returned McKinley telephoned Prantil on April 14, 1981.

the funds. With reference to the AFF trust deed, Goins with the assistance of someone else posing as the Martins fraudulently obtained funds. The record contains insufficient detail to fully explain this transaction and consequently it remains somewhat of a mystery.

McKinley explained he represented the Martins, whose property was encumbered by three trust deeds which the Martins believed were forged. McKinley asked Prantil about his relationship with Goins and Bell. McKinley cautioned that "if [Prantil] wasn't careful, [Goins and Bell] would implicate him in what they were doing since he was allowing his name to appear on these deeds of trust."

On July 15, 1981, McKinley had a further telephone conversation with Prantil. This time McKinley was irate. He now represented McKnight as well as the Martins and had filed quiet title actions on behalf of both. McKinley's telephone call to Prantil had been prompted by his conversation with Beam, an employee of Abecon Mortgage. Beam told him Bell had tried to market a trust deed signed by McKnight. In examining title Beam discovered McKinley's quiet title action and advised Bell his trust deed was not marketable. Bell returned and made a further effort to sell the McKnight trust deed. Beam again examined the title records. This time he discovered the...