P. v. Schultz
Filed 7/30/10 P. v. Schultz CA1/1
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FIRST
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
ONE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
HAROLD
DANIEL SCHULTZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
A125019
(Napa
County
Super. Ct.
No. CR138779)
Defendant
Harold Daniel Schultz contracted with a homeowner to remodel a kitchen and a
bathroom, and add a room to the house.
Defendant left the project uncompleted after receiving significant
payments from the homeowner. After a
court trial he was convicted of diversion
of construction funds (Pen. Code, § 484b)[1]
and receiving an excessive down payment (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7159.5,
subd. (a)(3)). Imposition of sentence
was suspended. Defendant was granted
probation and ordered to pay $40,320 in restitution to the victim.
Defendant
argues that he was erroneously convicted of diverting construction funds
because no evidence was presented that he diverted money received under the
contract to another project, which he contends is a requirement of Penal code
section 484b. This argument lacks merit
and we affirm the judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
Defendant
entered into a contract with Luella Petree in December 2005 under which she was
to pay him $45,000 for the improvements to her home. The contract provided for payment of $10,000
upon execution, and four bi-weekly installment payments of $8,750 beginning on January 13, 2006. Ms. Petree made the $10,000 down payment, and
installment payments of $8,750 by checks dated January 20 and January 31, 2006, giving defendant
$27,500 of the $45,000 due under the contract.
Petree testified that when defendant asked for another payment after
finishing work on March 11, 2006,
she refused and asked him to meet the next day with her and her family. She â€
| Description | Defendant Harold Daniel Schultz contracted with a homeowner to remodel a kitchen and a bathroom, and add a room to the house. Defendant left the project uncompleted after receiving significant payments from the homeowner. After a court trial he was convicted of diversion of construction funds (Pen. Code, § 484b)[1] and receiving an excessive down payment (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7159.5, subd. (a)(3)). Imposition of sentence was suspended. Defendant was granted probation and ordered to pay $40,320 in restitution to the victim. Defendant argues that he was erroneously convicted of diverting construction funds because no evidence was presented that he diverted money received under the contract to another project, which he contends is a requirement of Penal code section 484b. This argument lacks merit and Court affirm the judgment. |
| Rating |
