The People v. Ayyad CA2/6

Filed 9/18/13 P. v. Ayyad CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B245507 (Super. Ct. No. 2009017255) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

EZZAT AYYAD,

Defendant and Appellant.

The trial court, sitting without a jury, found Ezzat Ayyad guilty of one count of grand theft by defrauding a public housing authority. (Pen. Code, § 487i.)1 The trial court also found true the special allegation that the taking was in excess of $50,000. (§ 12022.6.) We affirm. FACTS The Ventura County Housing Authority (Housing Authority) administers Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rent subsidies for low income families. HUD provides regulations for the subsidies. The amount of the subsidy is determined by the family's composition and all family income. The client must report all changes to family, composition, income or

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.

assets within 10 days. The head of household has to live in the home full time. If the head of household is out of the home for more than 14 days, he or she must notify the Housing Authority in writing; if more than 30 days the Housing Authority must authorize the absence. If someone is staying at the house two or three days a week, it should be reported. If a head of household wanted to live 50 percent of the time in Egypt and 50 percent of the time in the United States, it would not be permitted. Depending on the severity of the omissions or misinformation, a person could be terminated from the housing program. Emtethal Harmina applied for rent subsidy voucher. Because of language and other difficulties, the Housing Authority asked Harmina to execute a power of attorney so someone could act on her behalf. Harmina appointed Ayyad as her attorney-in-fact. Ayyad filled out Harmina's original application on August 13, 2002, and an annual recertification for the subsidy from 2003 to 2007. The applications showed that Harmina, Ayyad, and Sarah, Ayyad's daughter and Harmina's granddaughter, were the only persons living in the house. Ayyad disclosed only one checking account with a balance of between $300 to $400. From 2002 to 2007, Ayyad failed to disclose: that Harmina was living in Egypt at least 50 percent of the time; that Ayyad's ex-wife, Hanan Botros, was living in the home; that Botros had a substantial income; and that Ayyad was earning rental income. In addition, Ayyad did not disclose on recertification forms that he had a Canadian bank account and that he held securities. The parties stipulated that Botros earned income as an office manager for a doctor as follows: in 2002 she earned $66,000; in 2003 she earned $93,479.50; in 2004 she earned $100,840; in 2005 she earned $107,322; in 2006 she earned $107,890. Botros testified in 2007 she earned $5,800 biweekly. Shirley Bumpus, a Housing Authority fraud investigator, testified that if she had discovered that Botros was living with Ayyad and that Harmina was living in Egypt,