## Facts

- Arnold Sutherland, age 83, operated a home-based sole proprietorship under the fictitious business name “Sutherland & Associates.”
- Sutherland hired Travis Eastburn as his only employee; Eastburn handled tasks including reconciling the business checking account and preparing checks for Sutherland’s signature.
- After about six weeks, Sutherland terminated Eastburn and hired a replacement who discovered multiple checks payable to Eastburn bearing Sutherland’s forged signature.
- The forged checks totaled nearly $23,000 and contained memo notations such as “bonus for new account” or “commission for sales.”
- Sutherland testified he did not authorize the checks, had given only a single $50 bonus, and never paid commissions; the account contained essentially his life savings.
- Defense witnesses testified they had seen Sutherland give Eastburn checks or accompany him to the bank, implying authorization.
- Eastburn was convicted of forgery from an elder adult under California Penal Code § 368(d) and appealed solely on the ground that the “victim” was a business rather than an elder individual.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported a conviction under Penal Code § 368(d) when the forged checks were drawn on an account associated with a sole proprietorship operating under a fictitious business name.
2. Whether a sole proprietorship’s DBA name creates a legally distinct “business entity” such that the elder-owner is not the victim for purposes of § 368(d).

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.
- It held that a fictitious business name (DBA) does not create a legal entity separate from the individual operating the sole proprietorship.
- Because the account belonged to Sutherland as an individual and Sutherland was an elder adult, the jury could find the forgery was committed “from an elder” within the meaning of § 368(d).
- The court rejected the claim that using a business name on checks or accounts prevents treating the elder individual as the victim.

## Legal Principles

- For purposes of Penal Code § 368(d), property taken from a sole proprietorship operated under a fictitious business name is property of the individual proprietor.
- A “DBA” designation merely denotes that an individual conducts business under an assumed name; it does not create a separate juridical person.
- An elder-adult financial crime enhancement cannot be avoided by characterizing the victim as a “business” when the business is a sole proprietorship owned by an elder.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Eastburn’s conviction because Sutherland’s use of a fictitious business name did not alter that the forged checks targeted Sutherland’s funds; as an 83-year-old sole proprietor, he was the elder-adult victim under Penal Code § 368(d).


People v. Eastburn, 189 Cal. App. 4th 1501, 117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 787 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)