UNITED STATES v. HIRSCH (2018)

MEMORANDUM ***

Defendant Randolph Hirsch appeals the district court’s revocation of his supervised release for conspiring to commit forgery in violation of California law. Cal. Penal Code §§ 182(a)(1), 470(d). Defendant argued there was insufficient evidence to establish that he intended that forgery be committed. So long as a defendant intends that “one or more conspirators will commit the elements” of the offense, the requisite intent to commit that offense is established. People v. Johnson, 57 Cal.4th 250, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 70, 303 P.3d 379, 390 (2013). Based on Defendant’s directions to his coconspirators, a rational finder of fact could conclude that Defendant intended the crime of forgery be committed.

Defendant also challenges whether a mortgage statement is a document covered by California Penal Code § 470(d). The test is whether a forged instrument “will have the effect of defrauding one who acts upon it as genuine.” People v. Vincent, 19 Cal. App. 4th 696, 700, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 714 (1993). The forged mortgage statement was intended to defraud a lender into advancing funds and therefore it is within the class of documents covered by § 470(d). AFFIRMED.