Based on this transcript it's pretty clear charge should have been reduced to misdemeanor and then dismissed. Judge Craig Richman could have done that at his discretion but he chose not to. He chose not to because he didn't want to rock the boat. Now the ball is in the court of appeals. He can wash his hands of it now. It doesn't affect him at all if the sentence is reversed.
You can check the appeal docket for this case here.
These are the justices for this case.
SUMMARY OF SENTENCING TRANSCRIPTS DEC.
15TH 2014
Page 3: Judge: THE
DEFENDANTS WERE CONVICTED OF ONE,
1 COUNT,
A VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE SECTION 487
2 SUBDIVISION
A, THAT'S GRAND THEFT OVER $400. THE
3 ALLEGATION
-- I'M NOT GOING TO SAY THE ALLEGATIONS.
4 THE
BODY OF THE COUNT ALLEGED THAT THE LOSS WAS OVER
5 $300,000.
THAT, IN AND OF ITSELF, CREATES AN ISSUE
6 THAT
WE HAVE TO ADDRESS, AND WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT TO
7 AN
EXTENT.
Page 10: Knowles:
AND THE THIRD PAGE OF THAT EXHIBIT
3 INDICATES
THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS MADE
4 THROUGHOUT
YEAR AND THE THIRD PAGE OF THAT EXHIBIT
3 INDICATES
THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS MADE
4 THROUGHOUT
YEAR REGARDING
MAINTENANCE.
Page 13:
Judge:
VAGUENESS OF HOW MUCH MONEY WAS SENT DOWN THERE. WE
2 DO
HAVE ESTIMATES FROM MR. COHEN NOT ON THE LOW SIDE OF
3 20
MILLION DOLLARS TO DR. MICHELSON'S ON THE HIGH SIDE
4 OF
$35 MILLION, AND I THINK THAT THAT VAGUENESS WORKED
5 TO
THE PEOPLE'S -- I'M SORRY, TO THE DEFENSE ADVANTAGE
6 IN
THIS PARTICULAR CASE. AND I WILL CONSIDER THAT
7 ISSUE
AS I GO FORWARD. BUT AS FAR AS THE SPEEDY TRIAL
8 MOTION, IT IS DENIED.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE
9 DEFENSE
HAS SUFFERED PREJUDICE
AS A RESULT.
Page 13:
Judge: SO
WE HAVE THE ISSUE CONCERNING A QUESTION
25 OF
HOW MUCH MONEY WAS INVESTED. WE HAVE THE LOW END
26 OF
$20 MILLION. WE HAVE THE HIGH END OF $35 MILLION.
27 WE
HAVE AN AMOUNT THAT IS STATED IN THE BODY OF THE
28 CHARGE,
ALTHOUGH I DON'T KNOW IF THE JURY NECESSARILY
Page:14
1 NEEDED
TO OR DID MAKE A FINDING ON THAT PARTICULAR
2 AMOUNT
AS OPPOSED TO WHETHER THE JURY MERELY CONCLUDED
3 THAT
THE AMOUNT EXCEEDED $400 WHICH WAS THE
Page 14-15: Judge: SO I'M
GOING TO ASK THE PEOPLE, AT THIS
25 POINT
IN TIME, IF THEY BELIEVE THAT DR. MICHELSON IS
26 ENTITLED
TO A RESTITUTION ORDER FOR THAT STATED AMOUNT
27 IN
THE BODY OF THE CHARGE, AND IF, SO WHY, AND IF NOT,
28 WHY
AND WHAT AMOUNT.
14
1 DO
YOU UNDERSTAND MY INQUIRY?
2 MR. KNOWLES:
YES TO THE FIRST PART BECAUSE
3 THE
CONSTITUTIONAL STATUTE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO HAVE A
4 LEGAL SENTENCE, FIRSTLY.
SO IN
TERMS OF THE LOSS, WHEN SOMEBODY LIED
23 TO
DR. MICHELSON AND HE AGREED AND EVENTUALLY DID PAY
24 THE
RECOMMENDED AMOUNT, EVERY ONE OF THOSE DOLLARS IS
25 STOLEN
UNDER THAT THEORY. IN TERMS OF RESTITUTION,
26 HOWEVER,
HE STILL OWNS SOME PROPERTY AND HIS ECONOMIC
27 LOSS IS A LITTLE HARD TO FIGURE.
Page 19:
THE COURT: AND THE DEFENSE, TO A LARGE
8 EXTENT,
RELIED ON MR. MARTEN ALSO. MR. MARTEN
9 TESTIFIED
AND PREPARED A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS
10 WHICH
REFLECTED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES PURCHASED
11 IN,
I THINK IT WAS, 2008
BETWEEN THE LOW OF $50
12 MILLION AND HIGH OF 75 OR CLOSE TO $80 MILLION.
13 MR. KNOWLES:
YES.
14 THE
COURT: AND TESTIFIED THAT MR. -- I KEEP
15 MAKING
THIS MISTAKE -- THAT DR. MICHELSON ATTEMPTED TO
16 SELL
THE PROPERTIES IN 2008 BUT WAS NOT ABLE TO DO SO
17 BECAUSE
OF A CONDITION THAT DR. MICHELSON PLACED ON
18 THE
SALE OF THE PROPERTIES THAT THE BUYER HAD TO BUY
19 THE
PROPERTIES IN CASH. DO YOU REMEMBER THIS
20 TESTIMONY?
21 MR. KNOWLES: I DO.
Page 21-22: MR. KNOWLES:
IT ENDED UP SELLING FOR WHAT
2 HE
THOUGHT IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SELL FOR IN 2008
3 AND
'9 WHEN HE WAS PUTTING THE VARIOUS ESTIMATES
4 TOGETHER.
AND HIS ESTIMATES ARE NOT CONSISTENT
5 PRECISELY
WITH ONE ANOTHER EITHER.
6 THE COURT:
AND HIS -- JUST SO I REMEMBER,
7 MY
RECOLLECTION OF THE FINAL
CLOSE OUT OF
8 DR. MICHELSON WAS SOMEWHERE AROUND $32 MILLION
WITH
9 STILL PROPERTY IN HIS POSSESSION;
IS THAT CORRECT?
10 MR.
KNOWLES: APPROXIMATELY, BUT I DON'T
11 REMEMBER
PRECISELY.
12 THE
COURT: AM I --
13 MR. KNOWLES:
YOU'RE IN THE BALLPARK.
14 THE COURT:
-- BALLPARK ON THAT?
15 SO DR. MICHELSON CASHED OUT $32
MILLION,
16 STILL OWNS
HOW MANY HECTARES?
17 MR. KNOWLES:
I DON'T REMEMBER.
18 MR. MICHAELS:
5,000 ACRES.
19 MR. KNOWLES:
ROUGHLY 5,000 Hectares.
20 THE COURT: AND
YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT ALL
21 THOSE
5,000 ACRES -- AND I WASN'T CLEAR ON THIS IN THE
22 TRIAL
AND I'M STILL NOT CLEAR ON THIS, BUT ALL OF
23 THESE
5,000 ACRES WERE THE SUBJECT OF COUNT 46/3?
24 MR. KNOWLES:
ONLY SOME OF THEM, NOT ALL OF
25 THEM.
26 THE COURT:
ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN YOU SAY
27 UNABLE
TO SELL BECAUSE -- AND I WROTE THIS DOWN IN A
28 QUOTE.
THIS IS SOMETHING I'VE BEEN CHOKING ON FOR
21
1 QUITE
SOME TIME -- IS IT UNABLE TO SELL OR UNWILLING
2 TO
SELL?
3 MR. KNOWLES:
UNABLE.
4 THE COURT:
AND WHAT IS THAT BASED ON?
Page 24:
MR. KNOWLES: EVENTUALLY MR. COHEN
BECAME
11 INVOLVED,
BUT DR. MICHELSON WAS INVOLVED IN THE
12 DECISION,
EVERY DECISION ALONG THE WAY UNTIL WE GET
13 INTO
MR. COHEN'S INVOLVEMENT IN 2005.
14 THE COURT:
DID MR. COHEN DO ANYTHING TO
15 LOOK
BACK IN HINDSIGHT OF WHAT WAS GOING ON OR HAD
16 BEEN
GOING ON?
17 MR. KNOWLES:
HE TESTIFIED FAIRLY
18 EXTENSIVELY
THAT, 2005, HE WAS NOT I INVOLVED WITH
19 VERY
MUCH THAT HAPPENED BEFORE 2005.
20 THE COURT:
WHERE DID HE COME UP WITH THE
21 $20
MILLION FIGURE THAT HE TESTIFIED TO?
22 MR. KNOWLES:
18 1/2 MILLION DURING THE YEAR
23 2005.
THAT'S WHAT HE TESTIFIED TO.
Page 26-27;
THE COURT: THEN WE HAVE MR. COHEN'S $20 MILLION, AND
24 THEN
WE HAVE MR. MARTEN'S ESTIMATES OF THE PROPERTIES
25 IN
2008 WHICH I WILL ASSUME, FOR THE SAKE OF
26 DISCUSSION,
IS THE HEIGHT OF THE ECONOMY AT THAT POINT
27 IN
TIME. AND MR. --
28 MR. KNOWLES:
I CAN'T EVEN MAKE A
26
1 RECOMMENDATION
ABOUT COSTA RICA. I KNOW THERE WAS A
2 GLOBAL
SHUT DOWN.
3 THE COURT:
THAT'S WHAT MR. MARTEN TESTIFIED
4 TO,
THE BOTTOM FELL OUT OF THE ECONOMY IN COSTA RICA
5 ABOUT
THE SAME TIME IT FELL OUT OF THE ECONOMY HERE IN
6 THE
UNITED STATES AND, I GUESS, GLOBALLY. SO
7 MR.
MARTEN ESTIMATES THE PROPERTY BETWEEN A LOW OF $50
8 MILLION AND A HIGH OF $75-PLUS MILLION. I THINK HE
9 MAY HAVE GONE AS HIGH AS 78 OR 79 MILLION DOLLARS.
10 AND
HE INDICATED, AT THAT POINT IN TIME, DR. MICHELSON
11 TRIED
TO SELL THE PROPERTY BUT WAS, AGAIN, UNABLE TO
12 DO
SO, ACCORDING TO MR. MARTEN, BECAUSE OF THE
13 CONDITION
THAT DR. MICHELSON WANTED CASH. I'LL ASSUME
14 FOR
THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
15 CASH
VERSUS TRADE AS OPPOSED TO SOME OTHER REASON.
16 BUT
THE WORD "UNABLE" WAS USED IN THAT
17 CONTEXT
ALSO WHICH -- THERE IS A REASON WHY I'M SO
18 TROUBLED
ABOUT THE SAME USE OF THE WORD WITH THE 5,000
19 REMAINING
ACRES.
20 AND
THEN MR. MARTEN IS DR.
MICHELSON'S
21 PERSON THAT HE HIRES. THE PEOPLE'S WITNESS IN THIS
22 MATTER TESTIFIES THAT, ULTIMATELY, THE PROPERTY IS
23 SOLD FOR THE $32 MILLION
THAT WE HEARD ABOUT EARLIER….. HE WAS THE PEOPLE'S WITNESS. HE
27
1 IS DR. MICHELSON'S HANDPICKED MANAGER --
Pages 35-41: THE COURT:
I. WELL OKAY. LET'S LOOK AT IT
5 THE
WAY I'M LOOKING AT IT, OKAY, BECAUSE I'M THE ONE
6 WHO
IS ULTIMATELY GOING TO SENTENCE. THIS IS MY
7 CONCERN,
IF I HAVEN'T MADE IT CLEARER THAN I THOUGHT
8 I'VE
ALREADY MADE IT: THE JURY HAS FOUND A THEFT -- A
9 GRAND
THEFT OVER $400. OKAY. AND POTENTIALLY, THE
10 PEOPLE'S
POSITION IS OVER $700,000.
11 ALL
RIGHT. MY CONCERN IS I
DON'T KNOW WHAT
12 THE JURY FOUND. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE JURY
FOUND
13 $700,000 OR THE JURY FOUND OVER $400. AND I
STATED, I
14 BELIEVE, ON THE RECORD AT THE TIME -- AND I
CONTINUE
15 TO BE BAFFLED BY THE JURY'S VERDICT. IT
SEEMED TO BE
16 INCONSISTENT.
NOW, THE CASE AUTHORITY IS FULL OF
17 INCONSISTENT
VERDICTS AND REPEATEDLY INDICATES THAT
18 THEY'RE
OKAY. SO I'LL ACCEPT THE REALITY OF THAT.
19 UNFORTUNATELY,
I HAVE PROPOSITION 47 THAT
20 WAS
THROWN INTO THE MIDDLE OF THIS MESS, AND I HAVE NO
21 GUIDANCE
WHATSOEVER HOW, IF AT ALL, PROPOSITION 47
22 FITS
INTO THIS SITUATION. I HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER
23 WE'RE
DEALING WITH LEAST ADJUDICATED ELEMENTS. I HAVE
24 NO
IDEA WHETHER WE CAN GO BEHIND THE RECORD, WE CAN
25 LOOK
AT THE INFORMATION AND ASSUME, FOR THE SAKE OF
26 DISCUSSION,
THAT THE JURY CONCLUDED THAT THE AMOUNT OF
27 THE
LOSS WAS $700,000. BECAUSE OF THE STATE OF THE
28 RECORD
BEYOND THAT IS CONFUSING TO ME AS TO WHAT
Page :36
1 DR.
MICHELSON'S LOSS IS.
2 AND
THE REASON WHY I'M CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT
3 HIS
LOSS IS, IS NOT SO MUCH RESTITUTION. IT'S DECIDING
4 WHETHER PROPOSITION 47 APPLIES TO THIS CASE OR NOT.
5 BECAUSE
I DON'T KNOW, AGAIN, WHETHER THE JURY FOUND
6 THE
AMOUNT OF THE LOSS WAS $700,000 OR OVER $400.
7 MR. KNOWLES:
PROPOSITION 47 DOES NOT
8 AFFECT
-- 47 SUBDIVISION A, IT DOES NOT EFFECT -- 47
9 SUBDIVISION
A -- I CAN'T SAY IT ANY MORE CLEARLY.
10 I
PUT IT IN WRITING, SAID IT TWICE HERE. IT WAS NOT A
11 PART
OF 47 -- PROPOSITION 47.
12 490.2
OF THE PENAL CODE IS THE PART OF
13 PROPOSITION
47 THAT COULD, ARGUABLY, APPLY HERE. THE
14 REST
OF IT HAS NO CONNECTION TO THIS AT ALL. IT'S
15 DRUGS
AND SOME OTHER STUFF.
16 487,
SEVERAL SUBDIVISIONS WERE AFFECT.
17 487(A)
WAS NOT AFFECTED. THE ONE AREA THAT'S GRAY,
18 THAT
HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED AND PROPOSITION 47 DOES NOT
19 ANSWER
THE QUESTION, IS WHAT DO YOU DO WITH SOMEBODY
20 WHO
HAD BEEN CONVICTED IN THE PAST GRAND THEFT UNDER
21 THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES.
22 THE COURT:
WHICH WOULD NOW BE A PETTY
23 THEFT.
24 MR. KNOWLES:
WHICH NOW WOULD BE A PETTY
25 THEFT.
26 THE COURT:
AND THAT'S THE SITUATION I'M
27 DEALING
WITH.
28 MR. KNOWLES:
NO, NOT NECESSARILY.
Page; 37
1 IF
YOU WERE CONVICTED AFTER THE LAW WAS
2 CHANGED
TO $950, FOR A $400 LIMIT, YOU CAN SAY PLEASE
3 RESENTENCE
ME. BUT THE LAW CHANGED IN 2011, JANUARY
4 2011.
SO IF YOU WERE CONVICTED IN 2009 OF A VIOLATION
5 FROM
2008 AND NOW PROP 47 SAYS YOU CAN GO BACK AND ASK
6 FOR
RESENTENCING, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE HAVE HERE, FIRST.
7 THE COURT:
SO IT'S PEOPLE'S POSITION THAT A
8 THEFT
IN 2000 -- FOR THE SAKE OF RANDOM SELECTION --
9 OF
$850 WHICH NO LONGER WOULD BE A GRAND THEFT UNDER
10 THE
CURRENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA LAW, IS NOT AFFECTED
11 BY
PROPOSITION 47?
12 MR. KNOWLES:
SOMEBODY CAN BE ASKED TO BE
13 RESENTENCED,
AND THAT ANSWER IS NOT CLEAR, WHETHER OR
14 NOT
THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT.
15 THE COURT:
I AGREE IT'S NOT CLEAR.
16 MR. KNOWLES:
IF IT WAS $800 OF AVOCADOS
OR
17 GUNS, THE ANSWER SEEMS TO BE CLEAR.
YES, YOU DO GET
18 TO
ASK FOR RESENTENCING. BUT IT DIDN'T TOUCH THEFT OF
19 MONEY.
SO IT'S AN OPEN QUESTION.
20 THE COURT:
OKAY.
21 MR. KNOWLES:
BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE FACTUAL
22 PROCEDURAL
SITUATION WHICH IS ANALOGOUS.
23 AND
TO FURTHER ANSWER THE QUESTION, THE
24 JURY'S
VERDICT IS PRETTY CLEAR. WE SKIMMED OVER IT
25 ABOUT
20 MINUTES AGO OR A LITTLE BIT MORE. BUT.
26 "IS
GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF GRAND
27 THEFT
OF PERSONAL PROPERTY IN
28 VIOLATION
PENAL CODE SECTION 487(A),
Page:38
1 A
FELONY, AS CHARGED IN COUNT 3 OF
2 THE
INFORMATION."
3 THEIR
COUNT 3 ALLEGED -- OUR 46 -- $759,600.
4 THE COURT:
IT ALSO DEFINED TRACKS OR
5 PROPERTY.
6 MR. KNOWLES:
YES. WAIT, I'M NOT SURE I
7 KNOW
WHAT YOU MEAN.
8 THE COURT:
IT DEFINED TRACTS OR PROPERTY.
9 MR. KNOWLES:
IT DID.
10 THE COURT:
DID THEY FIND AN AMOUNT OR JUST
11 A
GRAND THEFT BASED UPON THE PURCHASE OF THESE TRACTS?
12 MR. KNOWLES:
THE ONE IS THE SAME AS THE
13 OTHER.
THE 759,000 WAS THE PRICE OF THE TRACTS.
14 THE COURT:
SO IT'S THE PEOPLE'S POSITION
15 THAT
THEY FOUND A THEFT OF $759,600?
16 MR. KNOWLES:
YES.
17 THE COURT:
OKAY. MR. MICHAELS?
18 MR. MICHAELS:
I COULDN'T POSSIBLY DISAGREE
19 WITH
THAT MORE.
20 THERE
WAS WEEKS OF TESTIMONY ABOUT THE VALUE
21 OR
-- THAT HE RECEIVED -- DR. MICHELSON RECEIVED AS
22 PROPERTY.
HE TESTIFIED ON CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT HE
23 RECEIVED
THE PROPERTY, THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD FOR
24 $32
MILLION AND HE STILL HAS A BUNCH OF IT LEFT.
25 SO
IF YOU LOOK AT THE VERDICT FORM, IF YOU
26 LOOK
AT THE INFORMATION, THE INFORMATION INDICATES
27 THAT
THERE WAS A THEFT OF OVER $400. THAT'S REALLY
28 WHAT
THE JURY WAS SHOWN, IS THERE WAS A THEFT OF OVER
Page:39
1 $400.
LET'S SAY THEY CONCLUDED
THE THEFT WAS OVER
2 $450, THAT'S A PETTY THEFT. UNDER PROPOSITION 47,
3 THAT IS A PETTY THEFT.
4 SO
THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF THE $759,600
5 WAS
OFFSET BY THE PROPERTY THAT DR. MICHELSON
6 RECEIVED.
AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE JURY FOUND.
7 IF
WE LOOK AT THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS,
8 THEY'RE
INSTRUCTED WITH NUMBER 1805. ALL THAT WAS
9 PROVIDED
TO THE JURY ARE FIVE ELEMENTS, AND NOWHERE IN
10 THE INSTRUCTION IS THERE AMOUNT OF A FINDING OF
OVER
11 $950.
12 GIVEN
ALL OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS
13 PRESENTED
AT TRIAL ABOUT WHAT DR. MICHELSON RECEIVED
14 AND
THE LACK OF EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS A THEFT OF
15 OVER
$950, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY THAT THAT'S WHAT THE
16 JURY
CONCLUDED.
17 I
ALSO BELIEVE, PERHAPS I'M OFF BASE -- BUT
18 I BELIEVE PENAL CODE SECTION 1157
SPEAKS TO THIS
19 ISSUE, WHICH IS, IF THERE IS A FINDING BY A JURY
THAT
20 COULD EITHER BE A GRAND THEFT OR PETTY THEFT AND
IT'S
21 NOT SPECIFIED BY THE JURY, IT'S, BY DEFINITION,
SHALL
22 BE THE LESSER OF THE CHARGE.
I BELIEVE THAT'S THE
23 CASE OF PEOPLE VERSUS LOVE, WHICH IS A
2008 CASE. IT
24 HAS A FAIRLY SIMILAR SITUATION AS OURS, AND I
BELIEVE
25 IT TO BE THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY THAT -- THAT WE
ARE
26 REQUIRED TO HAVE THE LESSER FINDING OF A
MISDEMEANOR.
27 THE COURT:
ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.
28 I
DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION.
Page:40
1 AND EITHER WAY, I WILL BE APPEALED, AND
THERE WILL BE
2 AN ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION, OR I HOPE I AM APPEALED
3 AND
GET AN ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION.
4 I INDICATED EARLIER THAT I BELIEVED
THAT
5 PROPOSITION 47 MAKES THE CHARGE THAT THE
DEFENDANTS
6 WERE CONVICTED OF A MISDEMEANOR. I'M CHANGING
MY
7 MIND -- OR I HAVE CHANGED MY MIND.
8 I
AM INDICATING, FOR THE RECORD -- I'M
9 INDICATING, FOR THE RECORD, THAT I HAVE NO IDEA
10 WHATSOEVER WHAT THE JURY FOUND AS A LOSS IN THIS
CASE.
11 I
DON'T KNOW IF THEY FOUND THAT IT WAS THE $700,000 OR
12 THEY
MERELY FOUND THAT IT WAS OVER $400. I HAVE NO
13 IDEA WHETHER PROPOSITION 47 AFFECTS A GRAND THEFT
OF
14 OVER $400 IN VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE SECTION 487
15 SUBDIVISION A OR NOT.
16 THE
OFFENSE WAS CHARGED AS A FELONY,
17 ARGUABLY,
A FELONY WAS CONVICTED -- COMMITTED. I'M
18 SORRY. SO I'M GOING TO LEAVE IT AS A FELONY
AND
19 INVITE APPEAL. SO THE DEFENSE CAN ADDRESS THAT
ISSUE.
20 AS APPEAL IS APPROPRIATE.
21 WE'RE
GOING TO RECESS
Page 72: MR. MICHAELS:
I DON'T THINK THAT
2 PROPOSITION
47 CONTROLS IN THIS. SO WHEN
THE COURT
3 INDICATED IT INVITED US TO FILE AN APPEAL, I
RESPECT
4 THAT, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WOULD RESOLVE THE
5 ISSUE. SO I --
6 THE COURT:
YOU'RE JUST ASKING THE COURT TO
7 EXERCISE
ITS DISCRETION PURSUANT TO 17(B) AND REDUCE
8 TO A MISDEMEANOR?
9 MR. MICHAELS:
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A
10 DISCRETIONARY
ISSUE.
11 THE COURT:
IT WOULD BE.
Page 71: Mr. MICHAELS:
THE WAY I READ PENAL CODE 1157, THIS IS A
15 CRIME
OF DEGREES. IF THE CRIME
IS OVER $950, WE'RE
16 TALKING ABOUT GRAND THEFT, WHICH IS A FELONY; IF
IT'S
17 UNDER $950, IT'S PETTY THEFT, SHOULD BE A
MISDEMEANOR.
18 THE COURT:
ALL RIGHT.
19 MR. MICHAELS:
PENAL CODE SECTION 1157
20 INDICATES THAT WHEN THE JURY IS PRESENTED WITH A
CRIME
21 THAT IS DISTINGUISHED BY DEGREES AND DOES NOT MAKE
A
22 FINDING AS TO THE AMOUNTS OF THE CRIME, THAT IT'S
23 REQUIRED THAT IT BE THE LESSER OF THE DEGREES. IN
24 THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE THE PETTY THEFT BECAUSE
THERE
25 WAS NOT A FINDING OF THEFT BEING OVER $950.
26 THE COURT:
ALL RIGHT.
27 MR. MICHAELS:
LOOKING AT JURY INSTRUCTION
28 1805,
WHICH IS THE ONLY THING THE JURY WAS PROVIDED
Page: 72
1 WITH
REGARDING THE FINDING, THERE IS NO ELEMENT THAT
2 THEY
MAKE A FINDING ABOVE $950. IT'S COMPLETELY
3 ABSENT
OF THAT, AND WE PROVIDED THAT AS AN ATTACHMENT
4 TO
OUR MOTION. AND AGAIN, INVITING THE COURT'S
5 ATTENTION TO PEOPLE VERSUS LOVE --
IF YOUR HONOR HAS
6 NOT
LOOKED AT THIS CASE, I URGE YOU TO DO SO BECAUSE
7 I THINK IT'S VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL TO
OURS AND IT
8 APPLIES IN ABSENCE OF PROPOSITION 47.
9 IN
PEOPLE VERSUS LOVE, WHICH IS, AGAIN, A
10 2008
CALIFORNIA CASE, THE JURY CAME BACK, FOUND
11 AGAINST
THE DEFENDANTS FOR GRAND THEFT BUT THEY WERE
12 NOT
INSTRUCTED ON AN AMOUNT AND DID NOT MAKE IT A
13 FINDING
OF THE AMOUNT. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL IN
14 PEOPLE
VERSUS LOVE HELD, "THE COURT GAVE NO
15 INSTRUCTION
TO ASSESS A VALUE" AND CONTINUANCES ON, IT
16 SAYS, THE FELONY CONVICTIONS MUST BE
REDUCED TO
17 MISDEMEANORS AND THE DEFENDANT MUST BE RESENTENCED.
18 SO
WHILE WE CAN CERTAINLY VISIT WITH THIS
19 ISSUE
WITH THE COURT OF APPEAL, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT
20 PROPOSITION
47 IN THE DISCUSSION WE HAD AND THE
21 CONFUSION
-- I ADMIT IT'S A CONFUSING ISSUE AS IT
22 RELATES
TO PROPOSITION 47 -- IS NOT CONTROLLING IN OUR
23 SITUATION.
24 HERE
WE HAVE A FINDING BY THE JURY THAT
25 THERE
WAS A CONVICTION FOR CRIME, BUT THERE WAS NO
26 FINDING
AS TO THE AMOUNT.
Page 74: MR.
MICHAELS: SO I BELIEVE THAT UNDER 1157
15 AND
PEOPLE VERSUS LOVE, I
BELIEVE THAT THIS COURT'S
16 REQUIRED TO HAVE THIS CONVICTION BE DEEMED A
17 MISDEMEANOR, AND I THINK its REVERSIBLE ERROR
NOT TO
18 FIND THAT, RESPECTFULLY.
19 THE COURT:
THAT'S ALL RIGHT. I'D
20 I CERTAINLY REFLECT THAT AND IT
WOULDN'T BE THE FIRST
21 TIME I'VE BEEN REVERSED AND IT WON'T BE
THE LAST.
22 I LOOK FORWARD TO THE COURT OF APPEAL TELLING ME, ONCE
23 AGAIN, THAT I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
THE COURT:
I AM FINDING THE JURY FOUND IT
27 WAS
A THEFT OVER $400. THAT WAS THE LAW IN PLACE AT
28 THE
TIME, AND, THEREFORE, AND I'M GOING TO RULE ON
Page 75:
1 THIS
ISSUE TWO DIFFERENT WAYS.
2 ONE, I AM FINDING THAT I'M NOT REQUIRED
TO
3 REDUCE IT TO A MISDEMEANOR
TO WHERE THE LEAST
4 ADJUDICATED
ELEMENTS HAVE BEEN PROVEN AND FOUND, AND
5 TWO, I'M DECLINING TO EXERCISE MY
DISCRETION PURSUANT
6 TO PENAL CODE SECTION 17(B) IN REDUCING IT TO A
7 MISDEMEANOR.
Page 77: THE COURT:
ALL RIGHT. BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN (Mr. Knowles),
25 ARE
YOU ASKING FOR THE RESTITUTION WE SPOKE ABOUT
26 EARLIER?
27 MR. KNOWLES:
$375,000. THE LAW DOESN'T CARE
28 WHAT
NUMBER THE COURT PICKS AS LONG AS IT'S GOT A
Page 78:
1 RATIONAL
BASIS.
2 THE COURT:
WELL --
3 MR. KNOWLES:
BUT IT DOES REQUIRE YOU DO
4 SOMETHING.
FOR WHATEVER THAT IS, THERE
NEEDS TO BE A
5 RATIONAL BASIS. AS LONG AS YOU HAVE A RATIONAL
BASIS
6 IN THE EVIDENCE, THERE
IS ALMOST NO LIMIT TO THE
7 DISCRETION.
OUR SUGGESTION IS $375,000 BASED ON THE
8 DISCUSSION WE HAD EARLIER TODAY.
Page 84:
THE COURT: I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT I CAN ORDER
14 RESTITUTION TO DR. MICHELSON BECAUSE I BELIEVE ANY
15 RESTITUTION ORDER I MAKE, BASED UPON WHAT I'VE
BEEN
16 PRESENTED SO FAR, WOULD BE ARBITRARY. SO I AM NOT
17 GOING TO ORDER RESTITUTION TO DR. MICHELSON IN
THIS
18 MATTER. I DO ORDER A
$200 RESTITUTION FINE WHICH WAS
19 THE
RESTITUTION FINE IN PLACE AT THE TIME THAT THESE
20 FINES
WERE COMMITTED, $30 CONVICTION FEE, $40 COURT
21 SECURITY FEE.
THE COURT:
SO AS FAR AS MR. CAMPBELL,
PROBATION IS
2 DENIED, SENTENCE
IMPOSED AS FOLLOWS -- AND I'M NOT
3 GOING
TO DO AN ANALYSIS AS TO THE FACTORS IN
4 AGGRAVATION
VIS-A-VIS MITIGATION BECAUSE OF THE SHEAR
5 SIGNIFICANCE
OF THE CUSTODY TIME.
6 I
DO ORDER THAT HE BE -- AND
PEOPLE'S
7 CONCESSION THAT IT'S NOT NECESSARY THAT HE SERVE
ANY
8 ADDITIONAL TIME.
9 I
ORDER HE SERVE THE MID-TERM OF TWO YEARS
10 IMPRISONMENT IN COUNTY JAIL.
HE'S GIVEN CREDIT FOR
11 515
ACTUAL PLUS 514 GOOD TIME/WORK TIME FOR A TOTAL OF
12 1029
DAYS WHICH IS CLEARLY CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED.
13 I
DO NOT BELIEVE THAT I CAN ORDER
14 RESTITUTION
TO DR. MICHELSON BECAUSE I BELIEVE ANY
15 RESTITUTION
ORDER I MAKE, BASED UPON WHAT I'VE BEEN
16 PRESENTED
SO FAR, WOULD BE ARBITRARY. SO I AM NOT
17 GOING
TO ORDER RESTITUTION TO DR. MICHELSON IN THIS
18 MATTER.
I DO ORDER A $200 RESTITUTION FINE WHICH WAS
19 THE
RESTITUTION FINE IN PLACE AT THE TIME THAT THESE
20 FINES
WERE COMMITTED, $30 CONVICTION FEE, $40 COURT
21 SECURITY FEE.
Page 86:
THE COURT:
I
15 AM
GOING TO ORDER THAT MR.
POWERS BE IMPRISONED IN THE
16 COUNTY JAIL FOR THE HIGH TERM OF THREE YEARS.
OF THAT
17 THREE
YEARS, EXECUTION -- AND THE PEOPLE HAVE
18 CALCULATED,
MR. POWERS' CREDIT?
19 MR. KNOWLES:
YES.
20 THE COURT:
WHAT IS HIS CREDIT?
21 MR. KNOWLES:
109 ACTUAL.
22 THE COURT:
ACTUAL?
23 MR. KNOWLES:
YES.
24 THE COURT:
OF THAT THREE YEARS, 888 DAYS
25 ARE
SUSPENDED. MR. POWERS IS ORDERED TO SERVE 217
26 DAYS.
HE'S GIVEN CREDIT FOR 109 ACTUAL PLUS 108 GOOD
27 TIME/WORK
TIME WHICH IS A TOTAL OF 217 DAYS. SO HE
28 WILL BE ON MANDATORY SUPERVISION FOR 888 DAYS.
Page 88: THE
COURT: AND AGAIN I'M
NOT MAKING ANY ORDER OF
3 RESTITUTION. I DO BELIEVE ANY AMOUNT THAT I WOULD
4 DETERMINE WOULD BE WHOLLY ARBITRARY IN THIS
MATTER.
5 I
AM ORDERING MR. POWERS REMAIN IN THE
6 UNITED
STATES FOR THAT PERIOD OF TIME.
7 MR. MICHAELS:
FOR THE 888 DAYS SUSPENDED?
8 THE
COURT: YES. AND THIS IS MANDATORY
9 SUPERVISION,
SO I AM NOT ASKING MR. POWERS TO ACCEPT
10 THOSE
TERMS. THEY ARE SO ORDERED.
11 MR.
MICHAELS: I'M SORRY?
12 THE COURT:
THEY ARE ORDERED.
13 THAT
CONCLUDES THIS MATTER. GOOD LUCK TO
14 EVERYBODY.
15 I'M
SORRY. ITS 878, NOT 888. IF I COULD
16 ADD
OR SUBTRACT, I WOULD BE A DOCTOR.
17 (PAUSE
IN PROCEEDINGS.)
18 THE COURT: HOLD
ON. THERE IS ONE MORE
19 THING. ALL RIGHT.
20 MR. POWERS, MR. CAMPBELL, YOU DO HAVE THE
21 RIGHT TO APPEAL THE JUDGMENT OR SENTENCE OF THIS
22 COURT. WRITTEN
NOTICE YOUR APPEAL MUST BE FILED
23 WITHIN
60 DAYS FROM TODAY IN THIS COURT, NOT THE COURT
24 OF
APPEAL. UNLESS YOUR ATTORNEY FILES THE NOTICE, YOU
25 MUST
FILE YOUR OWN NOTICE. THE NOTICE MUST SPECIFY
26 WHAT
IS BEING APPEALED, WHETHER SIMPLY THE JUDGMENT OF
27 THIS
COURT OR THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS LEADING TO THE
28 CONVICTION.
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
