Judge Craig Richman should have reduced charge to misdemeanor then dismissed it

This next bit confirms my thoughts about the improper ruling by Judge Craig Richman. It really boggles my mind that the Judge should have reduced it to a misdemeanor then dismissed it based on case law but he chose not to. He had this case to back his decision but decided on his own not to rule. He will now force Neil and Richard to live out three or four years of appeal hell. They can't get a job, Richard can't leave the state... And all for what? So Judge Craig Richman can continue being a judge with the support of the DA. He doesn't want to piss anyone off so he doesn't have to deal with the City Attorney allowing another crazy person to file assault charges against him. I would like to note in that case Judge Craig Richman was not 100% innocent it turns out. The crazy lady threw a bag of dog shit in his car. He then as per his own statement pushed her. He also lied and told her he was a police officer. That is a crime in and of itself. Then she pushed him. During that case he had to step down from the bench during the investigation and trial. Sounds like judicial politics to me. I agree the charges should have been dropped. http://articles.latimes.com/2014/feb/04/local/la-me-ln-judge-dog-poop-battery-trial-20140204

Below is an almost identical case to the Powers/Campbell case in which the defendants were convicted of felony charges but the Jurors made no restitution or findings in the amount over $400 so the Appellate Court ruled them misdemeanors from felonies. This is now "CASE LAW."  Jonathan Michaels argued this case after lunch with the Judge saying, "lets forget about prop. 47 for a minute and look at this CASE LAW which makes published findings that you must reduce the count to a misdemeanor as the findings are identical to our case".

Judge Richman basically said, "that's a very good argument Mr. Michaels but I'm sticking with my earlier decision to NOT RULE, I may be wrong and I've been wrong before and you may be right and I invite you to appeal, and I expect you will, however I am letting the Jurors decision on one count of Felony Grand Theft to stand and I will not rule on a presumption of knowing what the Jurors decision would have been as far as restitution."

Jonathan then argued that is exactly the point and said, "Upon the failure of the jury to so determine, the degree of the crime with no stated restitution amount then it shall be deemed to be of the lesser degree, a misdemeanor by the court.”

"This is the published findings of the Appellate Court."

Since 2008 the amount of petty theft misdemeanor has been raised to $950 from the previous $400.  Still the Judge did not even find a restitution in the amount of over the misdemeanor threshold.

PEOPLE v. LOVE

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Sumaria LOVE, Defendant and Appellant.
No. C055398.
Decided: September 16, 2008

Patricia L. Brisbois, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Janis Shank McClean, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Tia M. Coronado, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury convicted defendant Sumaria Love of 15 counts of various identity theft-based offenses arising from abuse of her position of trust as a dental receptionist.

On appeal, defendant makes four claims:  (1) her conviction in count eight of fraudulently using an access (credit) card was only an attempted offense;  (2) the prohibition upon dual convictions for theft and receipt of the same property bars her from being convicted both of fraudulent use of an access card in count twelve and receiving stolen property in count fifteen;  (3) her felony convictions in counts four, eight, twelve and thirteen must be reduced to misdemeanors because the jury never determined the amount taken;  and (4) the trial court's imposition of an upper-term sentence violated her rights to a jury trial and due process under the Fourteenth and Sixth Amendments.

The published portion of this opinion encompasses defendant's first three claims and we agree with the latter two of them.   Accordingly, we strike defendant's conviction in count fifteen and remand the convictions in counts four, eight, twelve and thirteen for re-sentencing as misdemeanors.   We disagree with defendant's first claim.   In the unpublished portion of this opinion, we reject defendant's fourth claim.

Background
 
 Counts Four, Eight, Twelve, and Thirteen as Misdemeanors Based on Amounts Taken Not Determined⌑ Defendant next contends that her convictions for grand theft in counts four, eight, twelve, and thirteen must be reduced to misdemeanors because the jury did not find that the value of the items obtained exceeded $400.   The People have conceded the merit of this argument, and we agree.

In counts four, eight, and twelve, the jury convicted defendant of grand theft under section 484g, subdivision (a).  Section 484g, subdivision (a) provides, “[I]f the value of all money, goods, services, and other things of value obtained in violation of this section exceeds four hundred dollars ($400) in any consecutive six-month period, then the same shall constitute grand theft.”   Otherwise, the statute dictates the proper conviction as “petty theft,” a misdemeanor.  (See §§ 484g, subd. (a), 488, 490.)

In count thirteen (the postage meter), the jury convicted defendant of embezzlement, a form of theft, under section 508. (§ 490a.)   Embezzlement is punishable as grand theft if the value of the property taken exceeds $400 (§ 487, subd. (a)) or “[w]here the ․ property is taken by a servant, agent, or employee from his or her principal or employer and aggregates four hundred dollars ($400) or more in any 12 consecutive month period.” (§ 487, subd. (b)(3).)   Otherwise, it is punishable only as petty theft. (§ 488.)

In all four of these counts, the jury was required to determine the degree of the offense under section 1157, which provides:  “Whenever a defendant is convicted of a crime or attempt to commit a crime which is distinguished into degrees, the jury ․ must find the degree of the crime or attempted crime of which he is guilty.   Upon the failure of the jury ․ to so determine, the degree of the crime or attempted crime ․ shall be deemed to be of the lesser degree.”   The People acknowledge that section 1157 applies to defendant's case.   The offenses of which defendant was convicted, sections 484g, subdivision (a), and 508, require that the jury make the determination of degree, based upon its finding whether the value of the property taken exceeded $400 or not.

Here, the jury made no findings as to the value of the items obtained.   As for counts eight and twelve, the trial court initially instructed the jury to make a finding as to the value of the property obtained by defendant's fraudulent use of the access card information (CALCRIM No. 3220.)   However, the trial court withdrew this instruction following a question by the jury as to whether the property actually had to be received in order for a value to be placed upon it.   The court gave no instruction to assess a value for count four or count thirteen.

Because the jury did not find that the value of the items obtained exceeded $400 in counts four, eight, twelve, or thirteen, these felony convictions must be reduced to misdemeanors and defendant must be re-sentenced.

The convictions in counts four, eight, twelve, and thirteen are reduced to misdemeanors and the case is remanded for re-sentencing.   Defendant's conviction in count fifteen is stricken.


Dr Gary Michelson, Michelson Prize, $75 million, Found Animals Foundation, Dr. Gary Michelson, Gary Michelson, Gary, Michelson, Gerald, Michaelson, Gary Michaelson, G Karlin Michelson, Mary Cummins, Animal Advocates, marycummins.com, animaladvocates.us, Gary Karlin Michelson, Gary K Michelson, Karlin Michelson, Alya Michelson, Aimee Gilbreath, teak, farm, billionaire, Forbes, lawsuit, worth, married, fraud, pitbull, purebred, bribe, bribery, patent, spine, animal nut, patent troll, thief, criminal, childhood, philadelphia, pennsylvania, boca de canon, Los Angeles, California, Ed Boks, Edward Boks, Antonio Villaraigosa, steve cooley, jackie lacey, campaign, donation, district attorney, inventor, hall of fame, grandmother, hand, fire, burn, 20, million minds, text book, free, surgery, surgical, twenty million minds, dog, high school, law, lawyer, doctor, dr., Michelson Medical Research Foundation, foundation, wilshire, Karlin Asset Management, KAM, Found Animals Legislative Fund, mom, dad, mother, father, brother, Gracie, bull, spay, neuter, adopt, buy, capital, karlin ventures, david cohen, tianxiang zhuo, spinal, surgeon, ceo, Karlin Real Estate, charity, 501 3c, irs, nonprofit, non-profit, Gary Karlin Michelson M D Charitable Foundation, gay, homosexual, wayne pacelle, hsus, animal services, temple university, medical, school, born, flake, crazy, central high school, Hahnemann Medical College, drexel, jewish, russian, Medtronic, Wikipedia, grant, $25, $50, Kremlin, mail order bride, Karlin Holdings Limited Partnership, C & M Investment Group Limited, michelson technology at work, Infuse class action lawsuit, Karlin Opportunity Fund, Karlin OP, Medical Research Foundation Trust, Alya Michelson, Alya Gold, Alevtina Gold Michelson, Tina Gold, Alevtina Shchepetina, Alexander Shchepetina, Алевтина Щепетина, александр щепетин, sasha, ria novosti, USC, Japanica, Russian mail order bride, T'n'G, test tube girl, smile, orel, russia, moscow, journalist, pathological liar, #deanflorez #foundanimalsorg #alyamichelson #20MillionMinds #drGaryMichelson #GaryMichelson #20MM #JAPANICA #Forbes #billionaire #infuse #lawsuit #classaction