Filed 4/27/21 P. v. Li CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A161321 v. (San Francisco City & County JUAN LI, Super. Ct. Nos. 232039-03, 19005419) Defendant and Appellant. Defendant Juan Li appeals from a postjudgment restitution order requiring her to pay restitution to five victims. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, indicating he has not been able to identify any arguable issues on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. Defendant has been notified by her counsel she had 30 days to file a supplemental brief with the court. No supplemental brief has been received. Having independently reviewed the record, we conclude there are no issues that require further briefing and affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Defendant Juan Li and three other Chinese women were accused of taking part in a “Maoming blessing scam,” an affinity scam usually involving four suspects who target elderly female Chinese immigrants and take advantage of their superstitions. Li, who the victims never saw, played the role of an “overwatch” who would look out for law enforcement while the other women directly interacted with the victims and carried out the scam. The overwatch also provides counter surveillance when necessary, communicates with middlemen, handles the delivery and exodus of the group, and provides general protection for the group while the scam is being presented to the victim. Li and her accomplices were accused of perpetrating the scam on five Chinese victims and using similar scheming methods on each victim. The scam begins with the first perpetrator approaching the victim, who is usually an elderly Chinese-speaking woman alone in public. The first perpetrator asks the victim if she knows where a particular doctor or a particular herb can be found, explaining a family member has a major health issue and needs the herb. A second perpetrator then approaches the two women, pretending to be a stranger who overheard their conversation. She tells the two women she knows where to find the doctor or herb, that the location is nearby, and suggests they all walk there together. The victim follows the two perpetrators to the location, and on the way there, the perpetrators ask the victim personal questions to learn information about her. A third accomplice waits at the designated location, and when the two perpetrators arrive with the victim, the third accomplice tells them the doctor is too busy to see them, but she can call the doctor for advice. She calls the doctor, who makes targeted claims about the first perpetrator and her …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals