Grand Theft $120,000, Gardena, 1203.4 Granted, 17(b) Denied

From 2002 to 2004, our client worked as an accountant at a large Torrance manufacturing company.  The client was 25 years on in 2004 when the company realized that our client and her then husband, also an employee at the company, had embezzled approximately $120,000 through a clever scheme involving transferring funds to an account from which they withdrew money for themselves.

Our client and her husband were then prosecuted for grand theft (Penal Code § 487(a)) in the Torrance Courthouse.

Our client eventually pled no contest to a violation of § 487(a) and a restitution hearing was held wherein she and her husband were found jointly and severally liable for $120,000 in restitution.  The client was sentenced to 120 days in Los Angeles County jail with credit for sixty days actual time and 60 days credit for good time / work time.

Our client’s husband was sentenced to two years in state prison and then left for state prison.  This was before AB 109 was passed, so he went to actual state prison (not county jail).

Our client then made payments of $108,000 toward the $120,000 owed.  Her husband, who she quickly divorced, made no payments whatsoever toward the amount owed.

When $8,000 was remaining the president of the manufacturing company excused the final $8,000.

Our client then moved to Nevada and started a new life as a sex and relationships counselor.  She had two children as well.

In 2024, when her children were age six (her son) and nine (her daughter), she called Greg Hill & Associates about having the conviction expunged.  She explained the case facts as described above and how having a felony conviction was preventing her from being licensed in the State of Nevada.  Having a felony also prevented her from volunteering at her kids’ schools.  She definitely felt the stigma of being a felon.

Greg explained that in 2023, Assembly Bill 1803 was passed that revoked the requirement that restitution must be paid in full for one to be qualified for expungement.  Penal Code § 1203.426 and § 1203.427 were added to provide for this.  Therefore, the client was eligible for expungement.

Greg then explained that under California law, expungement allowed her to legally claim she was not convicted of grand theft, unless he was running for public office, applying to operate a state lottery, applying for a government job or applying for a state license, but that in many licensing applications, the licensing board was not allowed to consider an expunged conviction as a conviction.

As to having the felony reduced to a misdemeanor, Greg explained that a judge may find theft of approximately $120,000 as just too much money to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor, but it was worth trying because the judge may grant such a request.  Greg explained that he had been successful on such a motion in a prior case with approximately $55,000 in theft.

The client then retained Greg Hill & Associates and our office assembled a petition for dismissal under Penal Code § 1203.4 and a request for reclassification of a felony as a misdemeanor.  The petition included a supplemental memorandum of pointes and authorities explaining what had happened 20 years earlier and why she was requesting expungement and reduction of the felony to a misdemeanor.

The Torrance judge assigned to the case then set a hearing date and Greg attended the hearing on the client’s behalf.  The client stayed in Nevada.

The judge granted the petition for dismissal (expungement), but denied the request to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor.  The judge explained that the magnitude of the theft, $120,000, was just too great, but that he would reconsider the request if our client could establish that expungement did not help her unless the felony was also reduced to a misdemeanor.  

Greg then explained this to the client and asked her to consult with a Nevada licensing attorney familiar with licensing for counselors in Nevada and to evaluate whether reduction of the felony to a misdemeanor was needed for the licensing our client needed, in addition to expungement.  

The client was very happy with expungement nonetheless.