People v. Thompson CA3, C090913

Background

Defendant Earl James Thompson, an unlicensed contractor, ran Russell/Thompson and supervised a framing subcontract (contract value $1,536,380) while his license was revoked.
He misclassified carpenters as lower-paid laborers, submitted false certified payrolls to the Department of Industrial Relations, failed to pay fringe benefits and apprenticeship training fees, and underreported wages to lower workers’ compensation premiums.
The Labor Commissioner concluded employees were owed $633,199.55 in back wages; training fees due were $13,570.69; SCIF claimed $359,011.43; Brown Construction paid $233,610.47; 84 Lumber and others settled earlier sums.
Defendant pleaded no contest to a multi-count information (conspiracy, wage-related charges, grand theft, perjury, uninsured contracting, etc.). A bench trial was held on enhancements, sentencing, and restitution.
The trial court ordered $2,007,582.10 in restitution (including $768,190 credited as contract restitution to 84 Lumber), imposed a 10-year aggregate prison term, and assessed fines/fees; defense counsel did not object to restitution calculations or to fines/fees at sentencing.

Issues

Issue	People’s Argument	Thompson’s Argument	Held
Restitution — employee wages & training fees	Restitution supported by Labor Commissioner’s detailed calculations and victim testimony; employees and state are identifiable victims	Restitution lacked substantial evidence and misidentified victims; cash payments not credited	Court affirmed wages and training fee awards (sufficient evidence); but reversed contract restitution to 84 Lumber and remanded that portion for recalculation
Restitution — contract loss to 84 Lumber	Court may award contract value as victim loss	Defendant argued court improperly reduced award based on 84 Lumber’s comparative fault and lacked rational basis for amount	Reversed contract restitution because trial court reduced recovery based on victim’s comparative fault while defendant’s conviction (grand theft) required intent; remand ordered
Section 654 — multiple perjury convictions	Multiple perjury acts supported consecutive sentences	Perjury counts were part of one indivisible course of conduct (payroll scheme); sentences should be stayed	Sentences for perjury counts 9, 25, and 26 stayed under §654 (court erred in treating those as separate objectives)
Ability to pay fines/fees (Dueñas)	Imposition of statutory fines/assessments without explicit ability-to-pay findings was lawful here; no timely objection	Trial court failed to conduct an ability-to-pay hearing per People v. Dueñas; fines/fees violate due process	Claim forfeited for failure to object at sentencing; appellate court declined to reach merits and rejected ineffective-assistance claim on record

Key Cases Cited

People v. Giordano, 42 Cal.4th 644 (2007) (standard of review and required rational method for calculating restitution)
People v. Millard, 175 Cal.App.4th 7 (2009) (people may make prima facie restitution case; burden shifts to defendant)
People v. Petronella, 218 Cal.App.4th 945 (2013) (victim comparative fault cannot reduce restitution where defendant’s offense required intentional misconduct)
People v. Jones, 103 Cal.App.4th 1139 (2002) (§654 bars multiple punishment for indivisible course of conduct; intent/objective test)
People v. Scott, 9 Cal.4th 331 (1994) (routine defects at sentencing are forfeitable if not raised below)
People v. Trujillo, 60 Cal.4th 850 (2015) (Dueñas-based inability-to-pay claims are forfeited if not raised at sentencing)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-pronged ineffective assistance of counsel test)