45 Cal.App.5th 314
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Michelle Abrahamian was convicted of procuring/offering a forged quitclaim deed (Pen. Code §115(a)) and of possessing false notary acknowledgments with intent to defraud (Pen. Code §475(a)); jury found loss > $200,000 and an aggravated white‑collar enhancement for losses > $500,000. She was sentenced to an aggregate 7 years 8 months, plus a $500,000 fine and $189,382 restitution.
- The Mustang Lane deed purported to convey Thomas Cotton’s house to Abrahamian; Cotton denied signing. Notary Taline Indra signed acknowledgments; her notary journal entries were incomplete (missing thumbprints and other required data).
- Investigators found seven notary acknowledgments in a manila envelope in a truck Abrahamian was driving and numerous falsified documents on a computer at the residence linking the defendants to similar conveyances of other owners’ properties.
- The prosecution introduced numerous uncharged, similar property transfers (forged deeds/notarizations) to prove intent, common plan, and identity; the trial court instructed the jury that it could consider those acts for those purposes.
- On appeal the court reversed Abrahamian’s conviction under §475(a) (insufficient evidence that the acknowledgments were “completed”), reversed the aggravated white‑collar enhancement and struck the $500,000 fine, affirmed the §115 conviction and the §12022.6 enhancement, and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of uncharged acts under Evid. Code §1101(b) | Uncharged acts were admissible to prove intent, common design, identity and absence of mistake | Evidence was not sufficiently similar and was unduly prejudicial | Admissible: court found sufficient similarity and probative value; no §352 abuse; any instructional error re identity/motive harmless |
| Sufficiency of evidence for possession of a "completed" notary acknowledgment (§475(a)) | The seven acknowledgments bore Indra’s signature and seal and authenticated Cotton’s signature, proving possession with intent to defraud | Many acknowledgments were incomplete (undated, lacking penalty‑of‑perjury verification) so not "completed items" under §475(a) | Reversed: documents were not "completed" as required (date and verification missing); conviction on count 4 reversed for insufficiency |
| Jury instruction and whether conviction may be reduced to attempted possession | The guilty verdict supports conviction or, alternatively, reduction to attempt | Jury was not instructed that the acknowledgment must be "completed," so the elements of attempt were not necessarily found | Cannot reduce to attempt: because jury was not instructed on the completeness element, appellate reduction to attempt is improper |
| Aggravated white‑collar enhancement and $500,000 fine (§186.11) | Losses from counts 1 and 4 exceeded $500,000, supporting enhancement and fine | Count 4 is infirm; without two related felonies enhancement/fine fail | Reversed enhancement and fine: because count 4 reversed, enhancement (§186.11) and the $500,000 fine were stricken |
| Repeal of former §12022.6 enhancement (sunset prior to sentencing) | Enhancement invalid because statute repealed before sentencing | Offense occurred while statute was in effect; sunset clause applies to offenses committed during effective period | Upheld: §12022.6 enhancement and two‑year consecutive term are authorized (In re Pedro T. governs) |
| Ability to pay restitution ($189,382) | Restitution order valid; no timely Dueñas challenge | Appellant sought remand under Dueñas for ability‑to‑pay hearing | Forfeited and Dueñas inapplicable to victim restitution under §1202.4(f); no remand |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Edwards, 57 Cal.4th 658 (2013) (standard for admitting uncharged misconduct to prove intent or plan)
- People v. Leon, 61 Cal.4th 569 (2015) (1101(b) admissibility and similarity analysis)
- People v. Ewoldt, 7 Cal.4th 380 (1994) (common design or plan—degree of similarity required)
- People v. Mutter, 1 Cal.App.5th 429 (2016) (construction of §475(a) categories; distinction for §470(d) "completed" items)
- People v. Bailey, 54 Cal.4th 740 (2012) (when appellate court may reduce a conviction to attempt)
- In re Pedro T., 8 Cal.4th 1041 (1994) (sunset provisions: enhanced penalties apply to offenses committed while provision was effective)
- People v. Loeun, 17 Cal.4th 1 (1997) (statutory interpretation principles)