People v. Rahbari
232 Cal. App. 4th 185
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- In 1984 appellant Manuchehr Rahbari deposited 26 checks drawn on a joint Security Pacific account into a Bank of America account; the checks totaled ~ $235,000 and were returned NSF. Appellant fled and was later arrested in 2012.
- In 2013 bench trial Rahbari was acquitted of grand theft but convicted on 26 counts of passing checks with insufficient funds (Pen. Code § 476a).
- He was sentenced under Penal Code § 1170(h) to one year county jail plus three years mandatory supervision (a “split” sentence) and ordered to pay restitution to two victims (Saberi and Allen).
- At trial Bank of America’s investigator (Roth) testified about check processing and return-item notices; the defense relied on Rahbari’s claim he left checks with a manager (Hashemi) while traveling abroad.
- On appeal the court affirmed convictions and most rulings, but addressed (published) whether victim restitution tied to a § 1170(h) split sentence is limited to losses caused by the convicted conduct, and remanded to correct aspects of the restitution order (including interest and certain items).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of checks and return-item notices under business-records hearsay exception | Records were business records; Roth’s familiarity sufficed | Roth could not authenticate SPNB stamps or fully establish mode/source of preparation | Admission upheld; any error harmless given other evidence (affirmed) |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to move for acquittal at close of prosecution | No claim (People contended evidence supported convictions) | Counsel erred by not moving; defendant’s testimony supplied missing intent evidence | No prejudice shown—evidence presented by People supported intent; claim fails |
| Speedy-trial delay under state constitution | People: delay justified/harmless | Rahbari: long delay (1985 filing to 2012 arrest) prejudiced defense (lost witnesses/records) | Denial of dismissal affirmed; defendant failed to show actual, particularized prejudice |
| Section 654 sentencing (multiple punishments) | People: separate deposit days support multiple punishments | Rahbari: scheme was single course of conduct -> single intent | Court may punish for one count per day; substantial evidence supports renewal of intent across days (stay of other counts proper) |
| Restitution scope & interest under § 1170(h) split sentence | People: restitution as probation-like condition may be broad | Rahbari: split sentence restitution should be limited to losses caused by convicted crimes; interest from 1984 improper | Held: restitution for a § 1170(h) county-jail + mandatory supervision sentence is governed by § 1202.4 and must be limited to losses caused by the convicted conduct; certain awarded items stricken; interest must be recalculated from date each loss occurred; remand for recalculation |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hovarter, 44 Cal.4th 983 (2008) (trial court has broad discretion to admit business records; foundation review is deferential)
- People v. Rodrigues, 8 Cal.4th 1060 (1994) (harmless error standard for evidentiary errors)
- People v. Anderson, 50 Cal.4th 19 (2010) (distinguishes restitution under §1202.4 from probation §1203.1; unauthorized restitution reviewable)
- People v. Woods, 161 Cal.App.4th 1045 (2008) (§1202.4 limits restitution to losses caused by convicted conduct when prison sentence follows trial)
- People v. Gaio, 81 Cal.App.4th 919 (2000) (§654 analysis: temporally separated acts can support multiple punishments)
- People v. Fandinola, 221 Cal.App.4th 1415 (2013) (analysis of differences between probation and mandatory supervision under §1170(h))