211 Cal. App. 4th 1158
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Milstein appealed after a no contest plea to one count of conspiracy to defraud by false pretenses or false promises under §182(a)(4).
- Dispute centers on whether §182(a)(4) conspiracy falls under the three-year §801 or the four-year §801.5/§803(c) limitations when fraud is a material element.
- Last overt act alleged July 26, 2002; prosecution began July 6, 2006, less than four years later.
- Conspiracy described as an inchoate offense distinct from the underlying fraud; conspiracy requires an overt act but need not involve the substantive crime.
- Trial court treated conspiracy as potentially governed by a four-year period due to §803(c) and §801.5; appellate court ultimately held three-year limit applies.
- Conviction reversed because prosecution was time-barred under the three-year statute of limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conspiracy to defraud by false pretenses or false promises is governed by §801 three-year limit or §801.5/§803 four-year limit. | Milstein | State | Three-year limit applies; four-year period does not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Morante, 20 Cal.4th 403 (1999) (conspiracy is an inchoate, distinct offense from its object crime)
- People v. Crosby, 58 Cal.2d 713 (1962) (three-year conspiracy limitations run from last overt act)
- Prevost, 60 Cal.App.4th 1382 (1998) (three-year conspiracy period governs conspiracy charges despite underlying offense)
- Davis v. Superior Court, 175 Cal.App.2d 8 (1959) (conspiracy statute duration separate from substantive offense)
- Zamora, 18 Cal.3d 538 (1976) (three-year conspiracy limitations; last overt act rule)