People v. Stanley CA3

Filed 6/14/16 P. v. Stanley CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C077789

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CM031238)

v.

GEORGE JOSEPH STANLEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On May 10, 2013, defendant George Joseph Stanley entered a plea of no contest to 13 counts of obtaining money, labor, or property by false pretenses (Pen. Code, §§ 487, subd. (a), 532, subd. (a); unless otherwise set forth, statutory references that follow are to the Penal Code) and one misdemeanor count of contracting without a license (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7028); he also admitted an allegation of aggravated white collar crime (§ 186.11, subd.

1

(a)). The offenses were alleged to have occurred over the period May 13, 2009, to June 23, 2009. The probation report was stipulated to provide the factual basis for defendant’s plea; however, that report is not in the appellate record, and there was no preliminary hearing. We therefore rely on the People’s restitution statement, which alleges: Claiming falsely to be a licensed paving contractor, defendant solicited paving jobs from multiple businesses and homeowners, promising he could give them a good deal because he had asphalt left over from a prior job. In every case, he performed substandard work, for which he demanded and received immediate payment. According to an expert hired by the Contractor’s State Licensing Board (whose report was attached), all of defendant’s work would have to be redone. On June 21, 2013, the trial court imposed five years’ formal probation, including 270 days in jail, and levied a total of $519,048 in criminal and civil fines and fees, including victim restitution in the amount of $406,027. (Restitution to individual victims ranged from $7,092 to $51,838.) The terms and conditions of probation prohibited defendant from participating as an owner, partner, or employee in any related sales or service business without the written permission of the probation officer, and from possessing any check other than a paycheck. On March 28, 2014, the trial court modified probation by reducing the amount of victim restitution to $365, 273, so as to give credit for amounts paid by codefendants. On March 25, 2014, and on May 8, 2014, the probation department filed petitions alleging defendant violated his probation. The first petition alleged that on or about March 19, 2014, defendant represented he was the owner of Phoenix Paving Company. The second petition alleged that on or about March 17, 2014, defendant possessed a check other than a paycheck: to wit, he accepted a check for payment on a paving job from Central Valley Dairy Breeders. Defendant denied the violations.