Fraud
Category > Fraud
Updated 3/6/2024The quitclaim deeds were not false within the meaning of section 115 (which prohibits the offering of false documents) where the victims actually owned the properties and could legally quitclaim them to the defendant.The evidence was insufficient to support defendant’s convictions for violating Penal Code section 115 for filing false or forged quitclaim deeds because the alleged victims actually owned the two properties and were legally entitled to quitclaim them to defendant.id: 26500
Updated 3/6/2024A notary public’s certificate of acknowledgment is not a “completed item” for purposes of section 475 (a) if it is undated.Defendant was convicted of knowingly possessing a false completed notary public’s acknowledgment with intent to defraud under Penal Code section 475 (a). However, because the evidence was insufficient to prove defendant possessed a completed notary acknowledgment, the conviction was reversed.id: 26661
Knowledge of the falsity of a statement or of the materiality of the omissions is an element of commodities fraud, and the trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct on it.The trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct the jurors that to find the defendants guilty of commodities fraud, they had to find the defendants knew or should have known their statements were false when uttered. However, the failure to so instruct was harmless where the record clearly shows the defendants knowingly made material misrepresentations.id: 25200
Defendant’s elder fraud/theft conviction was reversed where he sold an older woman an annuity policy she did not understand but where there was no evidence that he intended to hurt her or benefit himself.Defendant, an insurance broker, was convicted of theft from an elder and dependent adult by selling her an annuity policy the prosecutor argued was an unsuitable product for her age despite its approval for sale to such a person by the California Department of Insurance. While there was evidence that the woman may not have understood the transaction, there was no evidence defendant appropriated the funds for his own use or that he made any misrepresentations initially. Moreover, the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jurors on the need to find defendant intended to deprive the elder of a major part of the value or enjoyment of her property. Defendant’s conviction for violating Penal Code section 368, subd.(d) was reversed.id: 23357
Court properly dismissed (under section 656) state counts charging conspiracy and insurance fraud which were based on the same "acts" to which defendant pled guilty in a federal case.Defendants were indicted for conspiracy to defraud insurance companies with false claims stemming from eight staged auto accidents. Six of the collisions also formed the basis for a prior federal indictment for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and the commission of mail fraud. Defendants pled guilty to certain federal counts. Thereafter, they argued the state counts should be dismissed under Penal Code section 656. The court granted the motion. The trial court did not err in dismissing the state counts charging conspiracy and insurance fraud which were based on the same "acts" to which defendant pled guilty in the federal actions. But the court erred in dismissing two counts of the indictment which related to two accidents not alleged in the federal indictment and in dismissing conspiracy counts against two defendants who were not convicted of conspiracy in federal court.id: 16763
Insurance fraud under section 550, subd.(b)(3) is a specific intent crime.Defendant was convicted of insurance fraud pursuant to Penal Code section 550, subd.(b)(3). The trial court erred by failing to instruct that the provision is a specific intent crime. The error was prejudicial where the prosecutor strenuously argued the wrong intent requirement in closing argument and defendant was acquitted on two other counts for which the good-faith-belief
defense was available.id: 19765
Obtaining health care benefits by false declaration is a wobbler rather than a straight felony.Defendant pled no contest to one count of obtaining more than $400 in health care benefits by a false declaration in violation of Welfare and Institutions Code section 14014. Contrary to the prosecution's argument, section 14014 is a "wobbler" rather than a "straight felony" offense. Therefore, the trial court did not err in declaring the offense to be a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 17, subd.(b).id: 15478
No securities fraud in failing to inform investors about a prior misdemeanor conviction that was later expunged and dismissed.A defendant charged with securities fraud may not be held criminally liable for failing to inform potential investors about a prior misdemeanor conviction which was expunged and dismissed pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.4.id: 16425
The trial court erred by not instructing the jury that nonentitlement to welfare and food stamp assistance is an element of the offense of welfare fraud.Nonentitlement for benefits is an element of the crime of welfare fraud under Welfare and Institutions Code section 10980. The trial court erred by removing this element from the jury's consideration. The instructional error was prejudicial where the jury made no other findings, either explicit or implicit, which indicated that it necessarily resolved the factual question of nonentitlement.id: 10406
Insurance fraud conviction was improper because a claim for payment of services is not a claim for payment of a loss.Appellant/pharmacist was convicted of insurance fraud under Insurance Code section 556, subd. (a). The evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because a claim for payment for contractual services rendered to a health maintenance organization is not a claim for payment of a loss within the meaning of section 556.id: 10399
Updated 2/26/2024Evidence supported the insurance fraud conviction for defendant who was engaged in a scheme of kickbacks from workers’ comp referrals.Evidence supported the defendant’s conviction for insurance fraud under Penal Code section 550 (b)(3), where he worked as an administrator at a medical clinic and referred patients receiving workers’ compensation benefits in exchange for referral fees. The insurance fraud was a natural and probable consequence of the conspiracy to commit workers’ compensation fraud in which defendant participated. id: 27261
Updated 2/7/2024Securities fraud could be committed under conspiracy or aiding and abetting theories. Defendant was convicted of multiple counts of securities fraud mostly involving Corporations Code section 25401. The court did not err by instructing the crime could be committed on conspiracy or aiding and abetting theories. Neither did the court err by instructing that the crime could be committed based on criminal negligence.id: 27143
Multiple small acts of insurance fraud were properly aggregated to establish a felony, and the felony statute of limitations applied.Defendant owned a network of medical clinics and was charged with multiple counts relating to the fraudulent billing of worker’s compensation and insurance carriers. He argued the prosecution improperly aggregated certain misdemeanor counts so that the fraudulent claims against each insurer would exceed the minimum of $950 needed to charge a felony. However, the aggregation was proper and supported a single felony count under Penal Code section 550 (c)(2)(B). Moreover, in that situation, the one year statute of limitations for misdemeanors did not apply.id: 25827
Evidence supported the commodities fraud convictions for the defendants who made misrepresentations in non-commodities contracts between investors and money managers.Defendants argued there was insufficient evidence to support their convictions for commodities fraud under Corporations Code section 29536 because they entered into money management contracts with their clients, not contracts for the sale or purchase of commodities. However, the Legislature did not intend to limit the meaning of “commodity” or “commodity contract” to any particular type of account, agreement or contract.id: 25199
Evidence showed an intent to defraud where defendant entered a Walmart seeking a full price refund for items he bought at a discount.Defendant was convicted of burglary of Walmart. He argued the evidence was insufficient to show that he intended to commit fraud when he entered with the intent to obtain a full price refund for items he purchased at a discount. He intended to injure Walmart’s pecuniary interest by taking more money than he paid for the items and this was fraud.id: 24339
Defendant committed credit card fraud by providing an expired debit card and representing that it was not expired. Evidence supported defendant's conviction for credit card fraud under Penal Code section 484g where he provided a company with the credit card authorization containing his expired debit card number, represented that the card had not expired and requested that the card be charged to pay the remaining invoices.id: 21626
Defendant offered the fraudulent documents into evidence under Penal Code section 132 when he handed them to the DCSS lawyer at the garnishment of wages hearing. After defendant stopped making child support payments, his ex-wife sought an “income withholding order.” At the hearing he provided fraudulent documents to the Department of Child Support Services attorney. Evidence supported his conviction for offering fraudulent documents into evidence under Penal Code section 132 even though the documents were handed to the DCSS lawyer and were not formally offered into evidence. id: 24256
Evidence did not support the convictions for sexual battery by fraud against two victims who knew defendant was sexually motivated when he touched them.Defendant lured women into his beauty salon after hours by promising facial treatments, but he then switched to “European massage” that resulted in vaginal touching. He was convicted of four counts of sexual battery by fraud. The evidence supporting his convictions involving two of the women who were tricked into believing defendant was conducting an accepted massage practice. However, the evidence did not support the convictions involving two women who clearly knew defendant’s actions were sexually motivated but remained on the table due to the fear of consequences. Those two convictions were reduced to the lesser included offenses of misdemeanor sexual battery.id: 23634
Workers Comp fraud statute does not require the prosecution to establish the correct premium or cost of insurance. Evidence supported defendant’s convictions for insurance fraud under Insurance Code section 11880, subd.(a). Contrary to defendant’s claim, the provision only requires the prosecution to show defendant knowingly made a false oral or written statement to the government sponsored workers comp insurance company, material to determining the premium or cost of the insurance intention to reduce that number. It does not require the prosecution to establish the correct cost of insurance.id: 23291
Security fraud convictions were supported by evidence where defendant misled investors by failing to inform them of the nature of the enterprises and his history of cheating investors.Defendant was convicted of multiple counts of fraud in the sale of a security in violation of Corporations Code section 25401. Each conviction was supported by evidence of a separate note promising the payment of interest and the return of principal. Evidence supported all of the convictions as defendant’s promises to repay principal and interest on the promissory notes were misleading absent disclosures about the nature of his business enterprises and his history of fleecing older investors. The lack of knowledge instruction was harmless where it was impossible to believe defendant was unaware of his misleading omissions.id: 23007
The address listed on a legislator’s voter registration form was not his legal residence when he voted and the conclusive presumption of section 2026 did not apply. Election’s Code section 2026 provides that the domicile of a member of the legislature shall be conclusively presumed to be at the residence address listed on the person’s currently filed affidavit of voter registration. The statute was enacted to allow elected officials to obtain a residence near Sacramento yet maintain for voting purposes their home district as their domicile. The conclusive presumption does not apply if the address listed on the affidavit of registration is not one of the legislator’s legal residences.id: 22286
Defendant committed billing fraud even though the Medi-Cal manual’s procedure code provisions were not adopted pursuant to APA rulemaking requirements. Defendant was convicted of Medi-Cal fraud for inserting an IUD device that was not FDA approved and billing for a more expensive approved device. He argued the claim was not fraudulent as a matter of law because the Medi-Cal manual’s procedure code provisions were not adopted pursuant to the rulemaking requirements of the state Administrative Procedure Act. However, defendant committed fraud by submitting a bill for disbursement of public funds he knew he was false.id: 22526
Evidence supported the Medi-Cal fraud conviction where the jury found defendant billed for inserting an FDA approved IUD device but provided a cheaper non-approved device instead.Defendant argued the evidence was insufficient to support his Medi-Cal fraud conviction because the improper billing was a product of erroneous codes that had been input into the office billing system and defendant’s conduct in overseeing this was negligent but not fraudulent. However, the jury made a factual finding to the contrary. And when the claim form was submitted, by his own testimony, defendant knew he was not entitled to reimbursement for the approved IUD device when he inserted a cheaper non-FDA approved device.id: 22525
Defendant was properly convicted of violating section 550, subd.(a)(2) for presenting fraudulent claims for personal injury to various manufacturers of electric shavers. Penal Code section 550, subd. (a)(2), making it a felony to fraudulently “present multiple claims of the same loss or injury, including presentation of multiple claims to more than one insurer” is not limited to the presentation of multiple claims to more than insurer but also applies to the fraudulent presentation of multiple claims for the same loss or injury to one or more individuals whether or not they are insured for the loss or injury. Defendant was properly convicted of the offense for presenting multiple fraudulent claims for personal injury to the manufacturers of electric shavers.id: 22176
Written agreements executed by people named in dismissed counts of the Ponzi scheme were authenticated by circumstantial evidence as they were intermingled with similar agreements in charged counts and were not inadmissible hearsay.Defendant was charged in a 118 count information with several offenses relating to the sale of unregistered securities. Counts one through 99 contained the names of 33 victims. Only eight testified at trial. The court later dismissed the counts involving the other 25. The court admitted as nonhearsay the 150 agreements executed by the 25 people named in the dismissed counts and allowed the prosecutor to refer to those documents in closing arguments. Defendant argued the documents were not properly authenticated and were inadmissible hearsay. However, the documents were authenticated by their content and circumstantial evidence as they were found in defendant’s office intermingled with the agreements and enrollment forms authenticated by the testifying victims. The documents were also not inadmissible hearsay as they were probative of defendant’s intent and helped explain how a Ponzi scheme works. id: 21276
Defendant could be convicted of multiple counts of insurance fraud since preparing fraudulent documents and submitting them to a lawyer are separate acts of fraud. Defendant was convicted of multiple counts of insurance fraud. She argued that she could not be convicted of violating both subdivisions (a)(1) and (a)(5) of Penal Code section 550 because they provide different means of committing the same offense. While that may be true in some cases, defendant’s multiple convictions were appropriate because they were based on different acts of fraud as she had clients of the chiropractor office falsely sign sign-in-sheets overstating the number of treatments (section 550, subd. (a)(5) ) and then she submitted the false claims to the law office (section 550, subd.(a)(1)). Moreover, contrary to defendant’s claim, the single intent and plan doctrine does not apply to insurance fraud.id: 20899
Defendant was properly prosecuted for both perjury and misrepresentation arising out of the same acts of lying on welfare applications. Defendant argued he could not be convicted of misrepresentation and perjury arising from the same activities (lying on applications for food stamps and cash aid) because the misrepresentation statute (Welfare Institutions Code section 10980, subd.(c)(2)) is a specific statute precluding prosecution under the more general perjury statute. However, the Legislature’s requirement that statement by aid recipients be filed under penalty of perjury shows that simultaneous prosecutions may be maintained for both offenses. To protect defendant from dual punishment, the trial court appropriately stayed the punishment for the misrepresentation conviction.id: 20665
Defendant completed the offense of credit card fraud once he entered the victim’s credit card information onto the Internet page to place the order. Defendant argued the evidence did not support her conviction for the fraudulent use of a credit card because the credit card company canceled the order and prevented the gift card from being issued pursuant to her use of the victims’s credit card. However, the completed offense (rather than the attempt) under Penal Code section 484g,subd.(a) was completed once defendant entered the victim’s credit card information onto an Internet page to place the order.id: 20618
Chain scheme which bilked money from investors also involved securities fraud.Defendants argued the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions for violating California securities law (Corporations Code sections 25110, 25401 and 25441) because the chain scheme programs were not securities within the meaning of section 25019 since the members actively participated in the venture. However, evidence supported the finding that the program was a security where members believed they were investors and co-owners.id: 19257
A jury can compare an exemplar of defendant's handwriting with the writing on a disputed document to determine if the defendant signed the disputed document.Defendant argued the evidence did not support his insurance fraud conviction because, absent testimony from a handwriting expert, the jury could not properly compare defendant's signature on his driver's license with questioned signatures on the claims and related documents to conclude the latter signatures were made by defendant. However, under Evidence Code section 417, the jury may determine that a criminal defendant signed a document by comparing the handwriting on a questioned document to an authenticated exemplar of the defendant's handwriting.
id: 18800
The statute of limitations for filing a false nomination paper under section 18203 is four years after discovery.The statute of limitations for an offense of filing a false nomination paper under Election Code section 18203 is four years after discovery.
id: 18021
A first offense of obtaining telephone services by fraud under section 502.7(a) can be punished as a felony even if the amount of the loss does not exceed $400.Defendant was convicted of obtaining telephone services by fraud in violation of Penal Code section 502.7, subd.(a). The loss from the telephone service obtained by fraud was less than $400. The offense can properly be punished as a felony even though the amount of the loss did not exceed $400.id: 16701
Workers' compensation fraud and perjury convictions were proper following defendant's dishonest opinion as to his intense pain requiring home medical care.Defendant was convicted of making fraudulent statements to obtain workers' compensation benefits, perjury, and grand theft by false pretenses. A surreptitiously recorded videotape depicted him as a robust commercial fisherman rather than a sedentary invalid entitled to $42,000 worth of "in home attendant care." He argued he did not violate the charged offenses because his statements about pain were opinion rather than fact, and he should be subject to criminal liability for exaggerating symptoms to obtain care that others might deem unnecessary. However, the convictions were proper where the evidence showed defendant did not honestly hold the opinions he expressed.id: 15479
A chiropractor whose billings formed the basis of a fraudulent claim actually tendered by the lawyer can be said to have caused the presentation of the fraudulent claim.Defendant chiropractor was charged with presenting a fraudulent insurance claim under former Insurance Code section 556, subdivision (a)(1). He argued that only the insured or the attorney who presented the demand letter can be liable under that provision since he, as the care provider, neither presented the claim nor caused it to be presented. However, a care provider, whose billings form the basis of such a fraudulent claim actually tendered by another party, can be said to have caused the presentation of the fraudulent claim. Moreover, defendant's intent to defraud was established by his overcharging and use of unnecessary diagnostic tests.id: 10393
A prior demand for restitution is no longer necessary in welfare fraud cases.The trial court dismissed a welfare fraud prosecution under Welfare and Institutions Code sections 11483 and 10980 because it found that a demand for restitution had not been made prior to the commencement of criminal proceedings. The court relied on <i>People v. McGee</i> (1977) 19 Cal.3d 948 and its progeny. However, a prior demand for restitution is no longer necessary in cases of welfare fraud under these cases because of the 1984 amendments to section 11483, and the enactment of section 10890 at that time. Since the trial court erroneously assumed a prior demand was required, the order granting the motion to dismiss was reversed.id: 10394
Bailey doctrine did not apply to merge multiple acts of Medi-Cal fraud into one offense or aggregate the grand theft offense with the Medi-Cal fraud offense.Defendant was convicted of one count of grand theft under Penal Code section 487, subdivision (l), and five counts of presenting false Medi-Cal claims under Welfare and Institutions Code section 14107. He argued the Bailey doctrine (<i>People v. Bailey</i> (1961) 55 Cal.2d 514) precluded his conviction on four of the five Medi-Cal fraud counts and on both grand theft and Medi-Cal fraud counts. However, section 14107 is concerned with the intentional submission of false claims rather than the amount of money involved. Therefore, the <i>Bailey</i> doctrine did not apply to aggregate the five Medi-Cal fraud offenses into just one offense, and the doctrine did not apply to aggregate the grand theft offense with the Medi-Cal fraud offense.id: 10395
Defendant was properly found to be an independent contractor and as such did not qualify for the employee exemption to the Medi-Cal fraud statute.Welfare and Institutions Code section 14107.2, subdivision (a) prohibits the receipt of remuneration, including kickbacks, in return for the referral of any individual to a person for furnishing merchandise paid for by Medi-Cal except payment by an employer to an employee. The term employee was properly defined to exclude independent contractors and the jury was properly instructed in this regard. Moreover, substantial evidence supported defendant's convictions for receiving unlawful remuneration as an independent contractor as she negotiated the price she would pay for Medi-Cal stickers, she had no work space or regular hours, she received no salary as she was paid on a commission basis, and received no health benefits. Defendant was properly found to be an independent contractor and not an employee.id: 10396
Evidence showed the county's loss following the welfare fraud exceeded $25,000 for purposes of the one-year enhancement where defendant produced no evidence to show that he was legitimately entitled to part of the claim.When defendant committed the welfare fraud, Penal Code section 12022.6, subdivision (a), called for a one-year sentence increase if the loss to the victim exceeded $25,000. The government's loss for purposes of the enhancement is the amount actually paid less the amount the defendant would have been eligible to receive absent the fraud. The defendant, however, bears the burden of proving that he or she would have been entitled to welfare benefits if the application for aid had been truthful instead of fraudulent. Here, defendant failed to demonstrate such entitlement. Consequently, substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict finding the one-year enhancement allegation to be true.id: 10397
Evidence supported conviction of conspiracy to commit insurance fraud where one defendant applied for benefits knowing he was ineligible because of his involvement in the killings.There was ample evidence showing that defendant, knowing he was ineligible to collect the benefits under the policies because of his involvement with the murders, concealed that fact when applying for the benefits. This was sufficient to support the conviction of conspiracy to commit insurance fraud.id: 10398
Manipulation of the confidential files of credit reporting companies established the intent to defraud required for conviction of illegal computer access.Appellant was convicted of illegal computer access under Penal Code section 502, subd.(b). He argued the prosecution failed to prove an intent to defraud. However, appellant gained access to the confidential files of various credit reporting companies without their permission or knowledge. Upon gaining access, he deliberately entered false information such as the false names and numbers, which he knew would result in the subscribers to these companies' services extending credit to individuals they would otherwise refuse. This scheme was exactly the kind of manipulation of computer data files the statute was designed to prohibit.id: 10400
Misrepresentations regarding a prior knee injury were material because an accurate medical record would have helped explain defendant's current knee condition.Defendant was convicted of violating Insurance Code section 1871.4, subdivision (a)(1) - making false statements for purpose of obtaining worker's compensation benefits. He argued that as a matter of law his misrepresentations were not material because prior injuries are relevant only if they result in a disability as to which apportionment is required and there was no evidence he had an apportionable pre-existing injury. However, the trial court did not misinstruct on the definition of material representation. False statements are material if they convey information which is reasonably relevant to the insurer's investigation. Defendant's prior injury was material to the cause of his knee condition.id: 10401
Proof of scienter is not required for securities law violation.Corporations Code section 25401 provides that it is unlawful to offer to buy or sell a security where such offer includes an untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. Section 25401 does not require proof of defendant's scienter.id: 10402
Suppression of perjured testimony is not required where on-the-record Fifth Amendment right advisements are not given in grand jury proceedings.The trial court did not err in denying the defendants' motion to suppress the grand jury statements which led to their perjury convictions. If on-the-record Fifth Amendment right advisements are required in grand jury proceeding, as defendants argued, redress for violation of those rights is governed by federal law. Under federal law, violation of these constitutional rights does not result in suppression of perjured testimony.id: 10403
The confidence scheme engaged in by defendant was not a fraudulent game proscribed by section 332 and defendant was properly charged under the general felony conspiracy to defraud statutes.Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to defraud another of property by theft (Penal Code section 182, subdivision (a) (4)), a felony. He argued the confidence scheme for which he was convicted, the Jamaican Switch, should have been charged under the special statute criminalizing confidence games, Penal Code section 332, a misdemeanor under the instant facts, rather than the more general felony conspiracy statute. However, section 332 prohibits cheating to obtain money or property of a victim by game, device, slight of hand or trick by use of cards, or other instruments or implements. A Jamaican Switch is not a game of any kind. It is a scheme to defraud a victim of money or property.id: 10404
The term "immediate personal supervision" sufficiently apprised the doctor of his supervision responsibilities for purposes of Medi-Cal fraud.Defendant argued reversal of his convictions for grand theft and Medi-Cal fraud was required because the statement on the claim forms he submitted that services were provided under his immediate personal supervision does not mean that he must be personally present when services are rendered by an employee. However, the term immediate personal supervision sufficiently apprised defendant of his supervision responsibilities under Welfare and Institutions Code section 14107.id: 10405
Court had no duty to instruct that Insurance Code section 1871.4, subd.(a)(1) requires a specific intent to defraud.Defendant was convicted of making a false material statement in support of a worker's compensation claim in violation of Insurance Code section 1871.4, subd.(a)(1). He argued the court erred in failing to instruct sua sponte on the element of specific intent to defraud. However, the only specific intent required by the statute is the intent to obtain or deny worker's comp benefits, and that is what the jury was instructed. Moreover, when the jury found the defendant knowingly made false statements with the specific intent to obtain worker's comp benefits, it necessarily found that he had a specific intent to defraud.id: 9894
First offense obtaining telephone services by fraud when the loss is under $400 is a misdemeanor.A first conviction of obtaining telephone services by fraud in violation of Penal Code section 502.7, subd.(a), when the amount of the loss is less than $400, is a misdemeanor.id: 9895
Penal Code section 114 which prohibits the use of false immigration documents is severable from the unconstitutional portions of Prop 187.Most of Proposition 187 has been ruled unconstitutional. Penal Code section 114 which prohibits the use of a false document to conceal immigration status was enacted as part of Prop 187. Defendant argued section 114 is unconstitutional because it is not severable from the other provisions of Prop 187. However, the initiative contained a severability clause. Moreover, the voters clearly intended to criminalize use of false immigration documents. Section 114 is severable from the unconstitutional portions of Prop 187.id: 9896
The asserted vagueness in the Medi-Cal rules was properly adjudicated as a question of fact in the trial court.Defendant was convicted of Medi-Cal fraud in violation of Welfare and Institutions Code section 14107. He argued the Medi-Cal regulations were void for vagueness because they failed to apprise him that his method of determining the appropriate payment for his services was wrong. However the asserted vagueness in Medi-Cal payment rules was properly adjudicated as a question of fact in the trial court and substantial evidence supported the finding that defendant knew the examinations he performed were not intermediate examinations as defined by Medi-Cal, and that he knowingly submitted false and fraudulent claims for services in violation of section 14107.id: 9514
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245