P. v. Aldana 6/8/09 CA4/3

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2009 » P. v. Aldana 6/8/09 CA4/3

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: G040320

Case Date: 08/20/2009

Preview:Filed 6/8/09

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANIEL ALDANA et al., Defendants and Appellants. G040320 (Super. Ct. No. RIF111207) OPINION

Appeals from judgments of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Stephen D. Cunnison, Judge. Reversed. David Joseph Macher for Defendant and Appellant Daniel Aldana. Law Office of E. Thomas Dunn, Jr., and E. Thomas Dunn, Jr., for Defendant and Appellant Donna Matney. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, James D. Dutton,

Sabrina Y. Lane-Erwin and Vincent La Pietra, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

INTRODUCTION Defendants Daniel Aldana and Donna Matney were each charged with two counts of grand theft, and one count each of misappropriation of public funds, knowingly keeping false accounts, and altering public records. A jury acquitted Aldana of all but one count. The jury was unable to reach a verdict as to one count against Matney, and similarly acquitted her of all but one of the remaining counts against her. The jury also found not true all sentencing enhancements alleged against Aldana and Matney. Aldana and Matney separately appeal their convictions for violating subpart 3 of Penal Code section 424, subdivision (a), which prohibits those charged with control over the expenditure of public moneys from keeping false accounts or making false entries in accounts.1 Matney had hired Aldana to perform administrative services at a regional county medical facility. Matney obtained Aldanas signature on blank timesheets, estimated and averaged the number of hours Aldana performed administrative duties, and prepared and signed Aldanas timesheets, thereby authorizing Aldanas paychecks. The timesheets did not accurately reflect the hours Aldana worked for the county, although the evidence showed, and the Attorney General does not dispute, Aldana worked many more hours for the county under an agreement to perform administrative tasks than he was paid for or than were listed on his timesheets. We reject Aldanas and Matneys claim that the jury was erroneously instructed regarding the element of intent. Section 424(a)(3) is a general intent crime, All further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise specified. Hereafter, we will refer to the various subdivisions of Penal Code section 424 in the following form: section 424(a)(1), etc. 2
1

and the trial court correctly instructed the jury that it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove Aldana and Matney had an intent to deceive. Although the crime is a general intent crime, proof of Aldanas and Matneys guilty knowledge was required; the jury instructions correctly included this requirement. We conclude there was insufficient evidence to support Aldanas conviction, because he was not an "officer of this state, or of any county, city, town, or district of this state, [or a] person charged with the receipt, safekeeping, transfer, or disbursement of public moneys." (

Download P. v. Aldana 6/8/09 CA4/3.pdf