One of the dismissed counts charged overt acts enumerating violations
The People appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of Marin County (California), which declined to order restitution for investigative costs to government agencies that had investigated the defendant's crimes. The defendant was convicted of two felonies, grand theft by fraud, Cal. Penal Code § 484(a), and filing false and fraudulent sales and use tax returns, Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 7153.5, on a negotiated plea of guilty.
The criminal charges arose out of a scheme by the defendant to sell regular gasoline as higher-priced mid-grade and premium gasoline. Defendant's business also failed to remit to the State Board of Equalization the full amount of the sales taxes collected on gasoline sold at his stations. The court held that investigative costs were not generally recoverable as restitution under Cal. Penal Code § 1202.4(a)(1), (k). The labor lawyers san diego know all about labor law of San Diego. If you face any labor law cases in San Diego then contact him.
Public agencies were not directly "victimized" for purposes of restitution under § 1202.4 merely because they spent money to investigate crimes or apprehend criminals. Investigative costs were recoverable, however, under the plain language of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 12015.5. Although the defendant was not convicted of violating any of the provisions of Division Five of the Business and Professions Code, his plea agreement included a Harvey waiver that allowed the sentencing court to consider the facts of the dismissed counts in ordering restitution. One of the dismissed counts charged overt acts enumerating violations of Division Five related to weights and measures. The restitution of investigation costs was thus mandatory because there was a criminal conviction.
The court reversed the trial court's order, to the extent that it denied recovery of investigation costs. The court remanded the matter to the trial court with instructions to enter a new restitution order, including investigation costs.
Defendant petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus for review of his convictions by the Superior Court of San Bernardino County (California) of grand theft and unlawful sale of real estate subject to a blanket encumbrance. Defendant argued that it was impossible to determine what theory of theft the jury had found him guilty. He also contended that the debts underlying the encumbrances had been discharged.
After he was convicted of grand theft and unlawful sale of real estate, the defendant requested a writ of habeas corpus for review of the judgment. To finance a residential project, the defendant had taken loans that were secured by deeds of trust on the property. Testimony showed that he sold homes that were still encumbered without holding deposits in escrow. The court found that the evidence was insufficient for a conviction of theft by false pretenses but ample to prove embezzlement. Because the different varieties of theft were consolidated as one crime, the court held that the jury did not have to agree on which form was committed and that the jury charge on false pretenses did not prejudice the defendant. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 11013.1, 11013.2 prohibited the sale of subdivision lots that were subject to blanket encumbrances without a release clause and required deposits to be held in escrow until the property could be conveyed with clear title. Rejecting the defendant's claim that the trust deeds were discharged, the court held that the validity of the underlying debt was not an element of the offense. Affirming his convictions, the court dismissed the defendant's petition for habeas corpus.
The court dismissed defendant's petition for habeas corpus and affirmed his convictions for grand theft and unlawful sale of real estate. The court held that defendant was not prejudiced by instruction on another form of theft where the evidence supported an embezzlement conviction and that respondent state did not have to show discharge of the underlying debt to prove sale of encumbered homes without releases or deposits held in escrow.