People v. Superior Court (Fernandez) CA2/8 ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Filed 12/13/21 P. v. Superior Court (Fernandez) CA2/8
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
    California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
    not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
    has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION EIGHT
    THE PEOPLE,                                                   B305058
    Petitioner,                                  (Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No. YA096660)
    v.
    SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS
    ANGELES COUNTY,
    Respondent;
    ______________________________
    JOSE A. FERNANDEZ,
    Real Party in Interest.
    ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate. Superior Court
    of Los Angeles County. Ronald S. Coen, Judge. Petition granted;
    remanded with directions.
    Jackie Lacey and George Gascon, District Attorneys, John
    Niedermann, Matthew Brown, Felicia Shu and Kenneth Von
    Helmolt, Deputy District Attorneys, for Petitioner.
    No appearance for Respondent.
    Andrues Podberesky, Vicki Podberesky and Dillon Malar
    for Real Party in Interest.
    **********
    The superior court partially granted the motion to dismiss
    of defendant and real party in interest Jose A. Fernandez,
    dismissing seven of 12 felony counts of official misconduct on the
    ground they were barred by the four-year statute of limitations
    codified at Penal Code section 801.5.
    The People timely filed a petition for writ of mandate
    arguing the superior court erred in finding the counts were time-
    barred. Pretrial review by writ was appropriate because the
    court’s order did not resolve all counts. (People v. Superior Court
    (Lujan) (1999) 
    73 Cal.App.4th 1123
    , 1125 (Lujan).)
    We grant the petition and issue a writ of mandate directing
    respondent superior court to vacate its order and enter a new
    order denying Fernandez’s motion to dismiss.
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    Centinela Valley Union High School District (the district) is
    a public school district in Los Angeles County. After serving as
    the interim district superintendent for nearly two years, real
    party in interest Jose Fernandez was hired in 2009 by the
    district’s five-member board of education (the board) for a three-
    year term. Shortly before his term expired in June 2012, the
    board approved a four-year contract extension.
    In February 2014, the Daily Breeze published an article
    raising numerous questions about Fernandez’s generous
    compensation, echoing criticisms raised in an earlier, December
    2010 article in the same newspaper. (Kuznia, Centinela Valley
    schools chief amassed $663,000 in compensation in 2013, Daily
    2
    Breeze (Feb. 8, 2014); Kuznia, ‘Magnificent’ deal outrages
    Centinela Valley teachers, Daily Breeze (Dec. 19, 2010).) The
    2014 article prompted an internal investigation by the district
    and an audit by the Los Angeles County Office of Education.
    Fernandez was placed on administrative leave, and the matter
    was turned over to the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office.
    1.    The Charges
    The District Attorney’s Office filed a felony complaint on
    August 29, 2017, charging Fernandez with 12 counts of official
    misconduct between 2009 and 2014, including embezzlement of
    public funds (Pen. Code, § 504, § 514; count 1), conflicts of
    interest (Gov. Code, § 1090; counts 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 & 9),
    appropriation of public monies (Pen. Code, § 424, subd. (a);
    counts 5, 8 & 10) and grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a);
    counts 11 & 12).
    Citing Penal Code section 803, subdivision (c), the People
    alleged the “violations were not discovered and could not
    reasonably have been discovered until after February 12, 2014.”
    Several paragraphs detailed the reasons for the delayed
    discovery. We summarize the discovery allegations.
    After the February 2014 Daily Breeze article, the board
    retained attorney Dennis Hernandez to review Fernandez’s
    employment contract. On March 11, 2014, Mr. Hernandez made
    a presentation to the board that outlined the substantial
    financial benefits paid to Fernandez beyond what had been
    disclosed to the board. Fernandez had misrepresented to board
    members that the information previously reported by the media
    relating to his compensation package was incorrect and
    exaggerated. “It was not until District Attorney investigators
    obtained voluminous documents and conducted interviews with
    3
    numerous witnesses that facts giving notice of the criminality of
    Fernandez’s actions were discovered by law enforcement and by a
    governmental official with supervisory authority over
    Fernandez.”
    Fernandez often concealed information from the board that
    “prevented the Board from discovering Fernandez’s crimes
    against the district. For example, by overwhelming the Board
    with the consideration of revisions to approximately 3,000 board
    bylaws, board policies, and administrative regulations in
    December of 2010, defendant Fernandez succeeded in burying
    lucrative financial provisions for himself in the alleged revisions.
    Fernandez also lied to the Board when he told them the revisions
    were all standard updates based on model policies developed by
    the California School Board Association when in fact, two new
    policies contained benefit provisions that were unique [provisions
    Fernandez drafted].” “Fernandez also concealed from the Board a
    supplemental retirement benefit he conferred upon himself [in
    two separate plans,] misrepresented the cost of the plan, and he
    unilaterally manipulated the definition of the defined benefit
    conferred without allowing actuarial costs for his changes to be
    computed.”
    “Defendant Fernandez failed to invite legal counsel to
    advise the Board at the February 28, 2012, Board meeting in
    which he proposed an addendum to his employment contract[,]
    [failed to explain] the effect of the amendment, and concealed
    [information] material to the Board making an informed
    decision.”
    “In December of 2012, Fernandez failed to present to the
    board for ratification a mortgage agreement, promissory note,
    and deed of trust for a home loan in the amount of $910,000 that
    4
    was paid entirely by [the district]. A $910,000 check to the Santa
    Monica escrow company was the only aspect of this transaction
    submitted to the Board and it was done so surreptitiously.”
    “Between 2011 and 2013, defendant Fernandez failed to
    seek ratification for excess salary paid by [the district] to himself.
    Fernandez also failed to inform the Board that payments made to
    him by [the district] for additional retirement service credit in
    2013 were in fact purchased in 2009 well before ratification of his
    employment contract and using money from a business
    previously owned by Fernandez that closed due to bankruptcy.
    Fernandez concealed the extent of the ‘reimbursement’ payments
    made to him by distributing the reimbursements over four
    payments between January and November 2013 and without
    notice to or consent from the Board.”
    2.     The Preliminary Hearing
    The preliminary hearing began in January 2019 before
    Judge Stephen Marcus. Numerous witnesses testified over the
    course of 10 days.
    a.    The Board
    The district is governed by a five-member board. Board
    members are elected, serve in a part-time capacity, and receive a
    few hundred dollars a month in compensation for their time. The
    primary duty of the board is setting policy and overseeing the
    work of the superintendent. The superintendent is considered
    the CEO of the district with responsibility for maintaining the
    fiscal health and welfare of the district and managing the day-to-
    day operations. Fernandez’s employment contract with the
    district specified he was both the CEO of the district and
    secretary of the board.
    5
    The five members of the board during the relevant time
    period were Gloria Ramos, Sandra Suarez, Rocio Pizano, Maritza
    Molina and Hugo Rojas.
    Gloria Ramos was elected to the board in 2007 and
    remained a member of the board at the time of her testimony.
    She worked for the district for several decades, starting out as a
    cafeteria worker. She held various positions including
    attendance clerk and librarian before eventually running for the
    board.
    Sandra Suarez was a member of the board from 2007 to
    2011. Ms. Suarez has an associate arts degree, but no financial
    education or training.
    Rocio Pizano was a board member from 2005 to 2018. She
    has a degree in accounting and worked fulltime for American
    Honda Motor Company while serving on the board.
    Maritza Molina was elected to the board in November 2009,
    a few months after graduating from college and just before the
    board vote on Fernandez’s employment contract. She served
    until 2015 when she resigned.
    Hugo Rojas was elected in November 2009 and was still
    serving on the board at the time of his testimony. He served as
    board president in 2010, 2015 and 2018. (Members rotated
    serving in that capacity.) Mr. Rojas had prior experience serving
    on the board of the Hawthorne School District. Like the other
    members, he has always had a separate full time position while
    serving on the board.
    The board held general public meetings twice a month. If
    situations arose that warranted an additional meeting, a special
    meeting was noticed in accordance with the Education Code and
    board bylaws. Several days before each meeting, board members
    6
    received a packet of information with the agenda and materials
    summarizing the issues that would be discussed and voted on at
    the meeting. Descriptions and analyses were generally short and
    summary in nature. If members had any questions, they were
    supposed to direct those questions to Fernandez.
    Fernandez routinely held what were called “board
    briefings” before general meetings. They were casual lunch
    meetings that lasted no more than an hour, and attendance was
    voluntary. The board briefings gave members an opportunity to
    ask questions of Fernandez before voting on agenda items.
    Mr. Rojas relied on those briefings in making decisions on how to
    vote.
    Ronald Hacker, the assistant superintendent of business
    services, testified the district operated on the theory that the
    board has one employee, the superintendent. All other
    administrative employees and assistant superintendents reported
    to the superintendent and did not have direct relationships with
    the board members. Bob Cox, assistant superintendent of human
    resources, also testified it was not his normal practice to speak
    directly to board members.
    b.     Fernandez negotiates a lucrative employment
    contract in 2009 by telling the board it was a
    standard form used by the Association of
    California School Administrators.
    In December 2007, Fernandez was installed as interim
    superintendent. Ms. Ramos, who was board president at the
    time, testified that while serving as interim superintendent,
    Fernandez asked for a longer-term contract with additional
    benefits. Ms. Ramos thought some of the benefits Fernandez
    wanted were not appropriate. In December 2009, a special
    7
    meeting was scheduled to discuss and vote on Fernandez’s
    employment contract.
    Ms. Ramos was on maternity leave when the special
    meeting was held. She received the agenda materials at home
    and participated in the meeting by telephone. The board
    discussed Fernandez’s contract and agreed to increase
    Fernandez’s compensation but was not inclined to include several
    of the benefits Fernandez had requested. The board voted
    unanimously to approve the contract.
    Several days later, the contract was brought to Ms. Ramos’s
    home for signature, as she was still on maternity leave. The four
    other board members had already signed off on it. Ms. Ramos
    testified that, as she started reading through the contract before
    signing, she realized it contained different terms than the
    contract the board had approved. She compared it to the copy
    she had received. The contract sent for her signature was
    backdated to an effective date of July 2009 and included several
    provisions the board had not approved, including a 9 percent
    longevity bonus, 30 days of paid vacation instead of 20 days, a
    home loan option, and a $1 million life insurance policy.
    Ms. Ramos refused to sign the contract.
    Ms. Ramos called Fernandez to confront him about the
    changes. He told Ms. Ramos he had worked hard for the district
    getting it out of bankruptcy, and he had not sought anything
    unusual, but had relied on form contracts from the Association of
    California School Administrators. He also told her he would not
    exercise the home loan option. Ms. Ramos testified Fernandez
    basically “talked [her] down.” Nevertheless, she told the other
    board members about her discussion with Fernandez and asked
    8
    for a special meeting to further discuss the contract. But a
    majority did not agree to hold another special meeting.
    Ms. Suarez testified the board discussed the contract before
    voting unanimously to approve it. The discussions were held in
    closed session with Fernandez present. It was not unusual for
    the board to discuss personnel matters in closed session because
    of confidentiality concerns. Ms. Suarez did not recall any specific
    topics discussed but did recall Fernandez saying he obtained
    sample contracts from the Association of California School
    Administrators.
    Ms. Molina testified the December 2009 meeting was her
    first meeting after being sworn in as a member of the board. She
    did not have much time to review the contract before the vote,
    but she recalled a brief discussion in closed session with
    Fernandez, with some district lawyers present. One of the
    attorneys said the contract was standard for the industry, and
    Fernandez agreed with that characterization. Ms. Molina
    understood the lawyers represented the interests of the district
    and were there to provide information and guidance to the board.
    She voted to approve the contract, relying on the lawyers’
    statements.
    Ms. Pizano and Mr. Rojas could not recall any specifics
    about the discussion of Fernandez’s employment contract.
    Ms. Pizano believed there was a brief discussion of the life
    insurance policy and the home loan provision. Fernandez told
    the board the provisions were standard and based on a form
    contract used by the Association of California School
    Administrators. Like Ms. Molina, Mr. Rojas was a new member
    of the board and had been sworn in shortly before the 2009
    special meeting. Mr. Rojas testified the board members did the
    9
    best they could according to their abilities given the limited
    resources and the time they had.
    c.    All communications with district lawyers are
    funneled through Fernandez.
    The district employed several outside law firms to provide
    legal advice, including Dannis Woliver Kelley (DWK). Three of
    the DWK attorneys who performed work for the district testified,
    pursuant to immunity agreements, at the preliminary hearing,
    Samuel Santana, Sue Ann Evans and Candace Bandoian. Two
    other attorneys who were not affiliated with DWK also performed
    work for the district and testified at the hearing, Dennis
    Hernandez and Jack Ballas.
    All the attorneys testified the district was their client, not
    Fernandez personally. However, because Fernandez was the
    head representative of the district, he was their usual contact
    person. Sometimes they would speak with district management
    personnel like Mr. Hacker, the assistant superintendent of
    business services. But they did not ordinarily communicate
    directly with board members.
    The board members confirmed this was the normal
    practice. Ms. Suarez testified any questions for, or information
    from, the district’s lawyers came through Fernandez.
    Ms. Molina never personally sought advice from district counsel
    because Fernandez repeatedly said that legal questions should be
    directed to him. Mr. Rojas testified that any legal issues were
    supposed to be shared with Fernandez who would then determine
    whether to seek advice from district counsel. Ms. Ramos testified
    Fernandez made it very clear to the board that any legal
    questions had to go through him.
    10
    Mr. Ballas, who had known Fernandez for years, testified
    he was hired by the district to review its legal bills and look for
    ways to reduce expenditures on legal fees. He also worked on
    new protocols restricting who was authorized to contact district
    lawyers for advice and requiring logs about when any such
    contacts were made.
    d.     The 2010 Daily Breeze article reports teachers’
    union criticism of Fernandez’s compensation.
    On December 19, 2010, an article was published in the
    Daily Breeze criticizing the compensation package in Fernandez’s
    2009 contract. The article did not implicate Fernandez in
    criminal misconduct. Rather, the article focused on criticism of
    the board from the teachers’ union for having approved his
    contract. The article also acknowledged several achievements by
    Fernandez during the then-recession, including bringing the
    district back from near bankruptcy, preventing widespread
    teacher layoffs, raising student test scores and successfully
    getting two construction bonds passed.
    Ms. Molina recalled seeing the article and that the head of
    the teachers’ union spoke out against Fernandez’s compensation
    package at a board meeting in early 2011. Ms. Molina testified
    that Fernandez and some of the district lawyers told the board
    his compensation package was standard for superintendents
    throughout the state.
    e.     Fernandez buries additional personal benefits
    in reams of board bylaws and policies.
    Sometime in late 2010, the board members were given
    three to four large binders containing the board’s governing
    bylaws and policies. Fernandez said they had not been updated
    in decades and recommended they be revised and updated.
    11
    Ms. Ramos testified the board was told the proposed revisions
    were based on model policies and templates from the California
    School Board Association.
    Much later, in 2014, the board learned that, buried within
    the thousands of pages of revised bylaws and policies, were
    provisions awarding Fernandez an additional $750,000 life
    insurance policy. Also buried within the binders were provisions
    to award Fernandez extra days pay, giving him immediate
    additional compensation and increasing the value of his pension.
    None of the board members was able to read through all
    the materials in the binders, estimated to be approximately
    4,000 pages. Ms. Ramos tried to read some sections with
    members of the teachers’ union, but they did not get far. Three of
    the board members (Ms. Suarez, Ms Molina and Ms. Pizano) told
    Ms. Ramos they had not been able to read the materials, nor did
    they understand large portions of them. Ms. Suarez found them
    particularly confusing. Mr. Rojas called it an “outrageously”
    large amount of material to digest.
    Mr. Ballas, one of the district’s outside attorneys, testified
    he was asked to attend a special board meeting to answer
    questions about the proposed revisions to the bylaws and policies.
    The meeting was short and not particularly productive because
    several members either arrived late or left early for various
    reasons. (One member had childcare issues, and Ms. Ramos’s
    mother had recently passed away.)
    Mr. Ballas told Fernandez that his background was in
    municipal law and not the Education Code, and he recommended
    Fernandez run the revisions by attorneys at DWK. Fernandez
    said he would do that. Mr. Ballas also sent an email to Fernandez
    advising that any cost implications from adopting the revisions
    12
    should be included in the agenda analysis for the board. As it
    turned out, Fernandez ignored this advice.
    Because of the large volume of materials to review,
    Ms. Ramos pulled the revisions from the agenda several times to
    give the board more time to consider them. She did not oppose
    updating the bylaws and policies, but she objected to the way
    they were being presented, in a rush, all at once. Ms. Ramos felt
    “mistrust[ful]” of Fernandez. Her concern was about being
    rushed into passing updates without knowing all the specific
    changes and how they would impact the district. She did not
    testify she suspected at the time that Fernandez was doing
    something illegal. Fernandez responded to her concerns by
    shifting the focus to larger issues facing the district that needed
    their attention, like avoiding layoffs, low student test scores and
    the like.
    Mr. Rojas was never advised the proposed revisions gave
    Fernandez additional benefits. He also did not recall any
    discussion of any potential fiscal impact of adopting the proposed
    revisions. He recalled Fernandez said the changes were “pretty
    standard” for most districts. When Mr. Rojas asked if they had
    been reviewed by counsel, Fernandez said everything was “good
    to go.” Mr. Rojas trusted Fernandez and relied on his
    representations in voting in favor of adopting the revisions.
    Ms. Pizano testified the agenda analysis for the revisions
    stated the cost implications were still “to be determined.” She did
    not recall the board ever being given that information at a later
    date. She also recalled Fernandez representing the revisions
    were standard. There was never any disclosure the proposed
    revisions provided additional benefits or compensation to
    Fernandez. Like Mr. Rojas, Ms. Pizano trusted Fernandez’s
    13
    representation they were standard revisions and therefore voted
    to approve them.
    Ms. Ramos testified Fernandez never disclosed or explained
    that any of the policy revisions, if adopted, would result in
    additional financial benefits to him in the form of insurance
    policies or extra days pay. The board, as Fernandez’s supervisor,
    was the only entity that could approve additional compensation
    for Fernandez, and there should have been a specific vote on it.
    Ms. Ramos did not learn the revisions resulted in additional
    benefits to Fernandez until 2014.
    The resolution to update the bylaws and policies passed
    with three members voting yes, Ms. Suarez voting no, and
    Ms. Ramos abstaining.
    f.     Fernandez manipulates district lawyers and
    the board to conceal his conflict of interest in
    supplemental retirement plans.
    Two different Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS)
    plans were presented to the board for a vote, one in 2010 and
    another in 2012. The 2010 PARS plan, which covered only
    Fernandez and assistant superintendents, was approved but was
    not implemented due to questions raised by the PARS agency.
    The second plan that eventually passed in 2012 covered a larger
    group of eligible long-term employees.
    Ms. Evans, a lawyer with DWK, testified that Fernandez
    asked her to look at the 2010 plan and provide some analysis and
    advice regarding the way it was structured. She advised
    Fernandez he had a conflict of interest in managing the plan
    while benefitting from it, and that concern had been flagged by
    PARS. Ms. Evans did not advise the board about the conflict of
    interest.
    14
    Mr. Cox, assistant superintendent of human resources,
    worked with Fernandez, Ms. Bandoian of DWK and Ed O’Leary
    of PARS in drafting the plans. Mr. Cox testified Fernandez put
    the 2012 PARS plan on the board’s agenda. Fernandez was
    eligible to participate in the plan, which he helped draft, and
    Fernandez vigorously pushed for its adoption. Fernandez
    proposed having an employee’s highest salary year be the basis
    for payments under the plan, and based on his highest salary
    year, he would be entitled to $52,000 annually if the plan was
    adopted.
    Fernandez spoke in favor of the plan to the board but did
    not disclose he would be able to participate and benefit
    financially if the plan was approved and implemented.
    Fernandez also underestimated the fiscal impact of the plan in
    the summary analysis presented to the board.
    Ms. Ramos recalled the district considered the
    supplemental PARS plans as a means of encouraging long-time
    teachers to take early retirement which would be a financial
    benefit for the district. She voted in favor of the 2010 plan,
    believing that was its purpose. Ms. Ramos did not know
    Fernandez was to become the plan administrator, or that the
    plan would only cover senior management. She was also
    unaware that Fernandez stood to benefit by as much as $294,000.
    None of that information was presented to the board.
    g.    Fernandez conceals from the board changes in
    law that prohibited some provisions in his 2009
    contract, thereby misleading the board as to
    the reasons for his 2012 contract extension.
    Ms. Bandoian, a partner at DWK, testified that Fernandez
    asked her to look at a draft extension of his employment contract
    15
    sometime after AB 1344 went into effect on January 1, 2012.
    AB 1344 had a number of provisions, including prohibiting an
    evergreen clause and an automatic salary increase clause in
    certain employment agreements. An evergreen clause provides
    for the automatic renewal of a contract at the expiration of the
    term unless expressly terminated.
    The DWK law firm prepared a general informational flyer
    about AB 1344 to let their district clients know it potentially
    impacted some employment contracts. Ms. Bandoian believed
    the flyer was probably only sent to Fernandez and not individual
    board members.
    Fernandez’s 2009 employment contract had both an
    evergreen clause and an automatic salary increase clause, so one
    or both needed to be changed if Fernandez was going to continue
    in his position at the end of his term in June 2012.
    Ms. Bandoian prepared a memo responsive to Fernandez’s
    inquiry to her that was intended to be copied to Ms. Pizano, who
    was board president at the time. Fernandez asked her to delay
    sending the information to Ms. Pizano until he had a chance to
    review it. After looking at copies of the correspondence,
    Ms. Bandoian acknowledged it appeared the memo ultimately
    sent to Ms. Pizano did not contain the AB 1344 information.
    The final version of Fernandez’s 2012 contract extension
    deleted the evergreen clause and set a new four-year term to
    expire in June 2016. Fernandez never told the board that
    changes in the law prohibited the evergreen clause in his 2009
    contract.
    Ms. Pizano testified she did not recall any discussion about
    changes in applicable law at the time Fernandez’s contract
    extension was being considered.
    16
    Ms. Molina understood her vote was simply to extend
    Fernandez’s term for four years. She was not aware of any other
    relevant issues. She had no background or legal training in
    employment contracts and no one provided any information to
    the board about new legislation impacting the contract extension
    or the meaning of “evergreen” clauses.
    Mr. Rojas testified he did not recall any discussion about
    any changes in law that would have impacted the contract or his
    decision-making in voting on the contract. At the time, he
    believed Fernandez was doing a good job and voted yes.
    Ms. Ramos, who ultimately abstained from the vote to
    approve, said there was no discussion about new legislation
    prohibiting evergreen clauses. Fernandez simply asserted that
    he thought the provision should be deleted because it was “the
    right thing to do.”
    h.    Fernandez secretly exercises a home loan
    option to buy a new house without board
    approval.
    Fernandez’s 2009 contract included a home loan provision
    in the event it became necessary for him to relocate and acquire a
    principal residence in the district. Sometime in the fall of 2012,
    after the board had approved the four-year contract extension for
    Fernandez, Ms. Evans, a partner at DWK, asked her colleague,
    Mr. Santana, to draft loan documents for Fernandez related to
    the home loan provision in his contract. After he drafted the
    documents, Mr. Santana sent them to Fernandez, who returned
    them with “redlined” revisions. Among other changes, Fernandez
    requested the removal of the district’s authority to call the loan in
    the event he was terminated for cause, instead limiting the
    17
    district to calling in the loan only in the event of his “voluntary
    separation.”
    Mr. Santana sent e-mails to Mr. Hacker and Ms. Pizano,
    who was board president at the time, advising them of
    Fernandez’s desire to exercise his home loan option. He included
    a number of recommendations for the district, including that an
    independent property appraisal was advisable. He also
    forwarded copies of the draft loan documents, but he did not
    forward the copies with Fernandez’s redlined revisions.
    Mr. Santana did not receive any response from Ms. Pizano so he
    assumed the board did not have any questions. Mr. Santana did
    not make any presentations to the board about the legal or tax
    ramifications of the home loan for the district.
    Mr. Santana told Fernandez he should have the final home
    loan documents presented to the board for review and approval.
    He did not follow up with Fernandez about whether that was
    done. Fernandez never presented any information about the
    home loan to the board for approval.
    Sometime in September or October 2012, Mr. Hacker
    received an e-mail asking him to approve payment to DWK for a
    title search related to a home loan for Fernandez. In early
    December 2012, Fernandez called him in to his office. He told
    Mr. Hacker he would be signing his loan documents as the
    district representative. Fernandez did not say whether the board
    had authorized this procedure. After all the documents were
    signed, Mr. Hacker asked Fernandez if he wanted the transaction
    to be placed on the next board agenda. Fernandez said that was
    not necessary. Fernandez said he would write a letter to the
    board president advising that he had exercised his option for the
    loan. There is no evidence Fernandez ever wrote the letter.
    18
    Ms. Pizano knew Fernandez lived in or near the district
    and did not believe he would need to exercise the option. She
    recalled having a conversation with Fernandez about his home
    being burglarized. Fernandez said he was concerned for his
    family’s safety and wanted to move, so he planned to exercise the
    home loan option in his contract. They did not discuss the issue
    further. The board never reviewed or voted on any loan
    documents. Ms. Pizano may have seen the paperwork sometime
    after the loan was completed or when it was pending, but not
    earlier and not for purposes of voting to approve it.
    Mr. Rojas was aware Fernandez’s contract had a home loan
    option but did not understand how, if or when it could be
    exercised. He recalled that Ms. Pizano may have said something
    to the effect that the loan option was “on the table” but nothing
    more specific. Mr. Rojas assumed that any loan contracts would
    have to come before the board for review and approval.
    Although the loan documents were not provided to the
    board for review and approval, the $910,000 payment to fund
    Fernandez’s loan was listed on a warrant report that went before
    the board. However, Mr. Rojas testified he never saw it. He
    explained that monthly warrant reports were presented to the
    board on the consent calendar. Payments were not individually
    scrutinized and voted on. Most warrant reports were
    voluminous. The $910,000 payment was included in a report that
    was 104 pages long. When reports were that lengthy, Mr. Rojas
    relied on Fernandez and legal counsel to highlight important
    matters for the board’s review and consideration.
    Mr. Hacker testified that in April 2014 after Fernandez
    was placed on leave, he reviewed various old records, including
    old warrant reports, and discovered the $910,000 warrant to
    19
    Santa Monica Escrow for Fernandez’s loan was listed in the
    November 2012 report, a month before the loan documents were
    signed. The warrant was paid as a direct payment from the
    general fund without a purchase order being generated through
    the district’s internal software. Without a purchase order, the
    warrant would not specifically be brought to the attention of the
    board. Mr. Hacker did not know who arranged for that to be
    done, but he testified it would have required a management level
    employee to authorize a direct payment being made in that
    manner.
    i.     The 2014 Daily Breeze article exposes
    Fernandez’s conflicts of interest.
    In February 2014, the second Daily Breeze article came
    out. Mr. Rojas asked Fernandez about the article during a board
    briefing and said it was “disturbing.” Fernandez said the article
    made mistakes and misrepresentations and miscounted and/or
    doubled his actual benefits.
    Fernandez requested that Mr. Hernandez, one of the
    district lawyers, prepare a document summarizing the terms of
    his contract for the board. At a closed session meeting in March
    2014, Mr. Hernandez gave a presentation to the board about
    Fernandez’s compensation and benefits.
    Ms. Molina recalled the presentation was “pretty basic” and
    not very detailed. She also recalled thinking it was “too late” to
    be receiving for the first time an explanation of the various items
    of Fernandez’s compensation. Ms. Molina, Mr. Rojas, and
    Ms. Pizano each testified the benefits were more substantial than
    had been previously disclosed. They learned for the first time at
    Mr. Hernandez’s March 2014 presentation about some of the
    benefits Fernandez had received.
    20
    Ms. Ramos testified she was not “sharp enough” to have
    discovered these benefits sooner. She could not recall when, but
    she did confront Fernandez at some point about the $1 million
    life insurance policy he was provided. He explained he had a
    heart condition, and the district was one of the listed
    beneficiaries, so it was a benefit for the district in the event
    something happened to him. She understood from their
    conversation the district would only be responsible for that
    portion of the premiums related to the district’s share as one of
    the designated beneficiaries. Fernandez’s wife was the
    designated beneficiary for the majority of the policy. It was not
    until 2014 that she learned Fernandez had actually received
    three life insurance policies, the $1 million policy, plus a
    $750,000 policy, and another $250,000 policy and that the district
    was paying the premiums for all three policies
    j.    The preliminary hearing ruling
    Judge Marcus found the People had adequately established
    all 12 counts were timely filed. The court held Fernandez to
    answer on all counts, except counts 6, 7 and 8, which the court
    dismissed for lack of proof.
    3.     The Penal Code Section 995 Motion to Dismiss
    After the preliminary hearing, the People filed an
    information against Fernandez alleging all 12 felony counts and
    the lengthy discovery allegations.
    Fernandez filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Penal
    Code section 995. The motion was set for hearing before Judge
    Ronald S. Coen. Fernandez’s main argument was that the
    statute of limitations barred the charges. He contended the
    board members were aware of facts long before August 29, 2013
    (more than four years before the prosecution was commenced)
    21
    and failed to reasonably and timely act on such knowledge.
    Fernandez also briefly argued a failure of proof of some of the
    counts.
    The court denied the motion in part and granted it in part,
    reasoning “I do find there is sufficient evidence to uphold the
    information; however, that doesn’t end the inquiry. There is an
    issue relating to the statute of limitations.” The court found the
    board had not acted as a reasonably prudent person in
    discovering the alleged fraud and misconduct alleged in counts 2,
    3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9. The court dismissed those seven counts on
    statute of limitations grounds only.
    The People then filed this petition contending the trial
    court erred in ruling on the statute of limitations defense as a
    matter of law and requesting a writ of mandate directing the
    court to vacate its order and enter a new order denying the
    motion to dismiss.
    DISCUSSION
    1.     Standard of Review
    The petition challenges the trial court’s order partially
    granting Fernandez’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Penal Code
    section 995. We review the evidentiary record and findings at the
    preliminary hearing at which Fernandez was held to answer.
    When a trial court resolves a section 995 motion to dismiss, it is
    not functioning as a factfinder but as a reviewing court. (People
    v. Gonzalez (2017) 
    2 Cal.5th 1138
    , 1141.) It must draw every
    legitimate inference in favor of the information, and it may not
    substitute its judgment as to the credibility or weight of the
    evidence for that of the judge who presided over the preliminary
    hearing. (Ibid.) Likewise, an appellate court reviewing a section
    995 dismissal order, by appeal or writ, reviews the determination
    22
    of the preliminary hearing judge. (Ibid.; accord, People v. Fine
    (1997) 
    52 Cal.App.4th 1258
    , 1262-1263.)
    2.     The Discovery Rule in the Applicable Four-year
    Statute of Limitations
    The parties agree the relevant statute of limitations as to
    all dismissed counts is the four-year statute at Penal Code
    section 801.5 which provides that “[n]otwithstanding Section 801
    or any other provision of law, prosecution for any offense
    described in subdivision (c) of Section 803 shall be commenced
    within four years after discovery of the commission of the offense,
    or within four years after the completion of the offense,
    whichever is later.” The charges of official misconduct at issue
    here fall within the offenses enumerated in subdivision (c) of
    section 803.
    The discovery rule codified in Penal Code section 801.5
    incorporates a diligence requirement. “ ‘[T]he crucial
    determination is whether law enforcement authorities or the
    victim had actual notice of circumstances sufficient to make them
    suspicious of [criminal activity] thereby leading them to make
    inquiries which might have revealed the [criminal activity].’
    [Citation.] The victim has the requisite actual notice when he
    has knowledge of facts sufficient to make a reasonably prudent
    person suspicious of criminal activity.” (People v. Lopez (1997)
    
    52 Cal.App.4th 233
    , 248, (Lopez); accord, People v. Bell (1996)
    
    45 Cal.App.4th 1030
    , 1061 [“[A]n offense is discovered when
    either the victim or law enforcement learns of facts which, when
    investigated with reasonable diligence, would make the person
    aware a crime had occurred.”].)
    Where, as here, the crimes involved official misconduct
    with respect to government funds, the victim was the board. The
    23
    board was responsible for overseeing the fiscal affairs of the
    district and had a legal duty to report a suspected offense to law
    enforcement agencies. (Lopez, supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at p. 238.)
    The board was also responsible for overseeing Fernandez as
    superintendent of the district. (See, e.g., Ed. Code, § 35161
    [board “may delegate to an officer or employee of the district any
    of those powers or duties” but “retains ultimate responsibility
    over the performance of those powers or duties so delegated”].)
    The board’s knowledge is the relevant focus for resolving the
    statute of limitations question.
    3.      Analysis
    At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, Judge Marcus
    found the People had met their burden to show the statute of
    limitations did not bar any of the 12 counts. Based on our
    independent review of the preliminary hearing evidence
    summarized above, we conclude that finding was correct.
    The evidentiary showing required to sustain a charge at a
    preliminary hearing is not substantial. (Lujan, supra,
    73 Cal.App.4th at p. 1127.) All that is required is evidence
    supporting a “ ‘rational ground for assuming the possibility that
    an offense has been committed and that the accused is guilty of
    it.’ ” (Ibid.; accord, People v. McCann (2019) 
    41 Cal.App.5th 149
    ,
    154-155.) And, “ ‘[e]very legitimate inference that may be drawn
    from the evidence must be drawn in favor of the information.’ ”
    (Lujan, at p. 1127.) If there is some evidence supporting the
    finding of the preliminary hearing judge, “ ‘the reviewing court
    will not inquire into its sufficiency.’ ” (McCann, at p. 155.)
    Fernandez argues the evidence conclusively established the
    board members were aware of facts before August 29, 2013 that
    would lead a reasonable person to suspect criminal activity, but
    24
    they failed to timely act on that knowledge. We disagree the
    statute of limitations bars counts 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 as a matter
    of law.
    a.     Counts 2 and 9
    Counts 2 and 9 allege conflicts of interest in violation of
    Government Code section 1090 based on Fernandez’s undisclosed
    financial interest in the 2010 and 2012 PARS supplemental
    plans.
    After the board voted to approve the 2010 plan, it was not
    implemented because of the concerns raised by PARS. The 2012
    plan was approved and implemented.
    The board’s votes on both retirement plans occurred before
    2013, but there is no evidence that any member of the board
    knew in 2010 or 2012 that Fernandez had been involved in
    drafting the plans, or that he was eligible to receive significant
    financial benefits under the plans. Ms. Evans of DWK advised
    Fernandez he had a conflict of interest, but she did not relay that
    information separately to any board member. Fernandez
    encouraged the board to adopt both plans without disclosing his
    involvement and financial interests, and he concealed from the
    board, advice provided by DWK, including that his proposal to
    become administrator of the 2010 plan created a conflict of
    interest. Fernandez vigorously pushed for adoption of the 2012
    plan and provided an agenda analysis to the board that
    underestimated the annual fiscal impact on the district of
    implementing the plan.
    Ms. Ramos testified the presentations to the board about
    the plans focused on them as valuable tools for enticing older,
    higher salaried teachers to take early retirement as a means of
    reducing long-term costs for the district. She was never aware of
    25
    Fernandez’s involvement and eligibility to receive significant
    benefits under either the 2010 or 2012 plan.
    Ms. Ramos, Ms. Pizano, Ms. Molina and Mr. Rojas all
    testified they were unaware of Fernandez’s conflict of interest
    and self-dealing with respect to the retirement plans until after
    the 2014 Daily Breeze article. No member of the board had
    actual knowledge of Fernandez’s conflicts of interest before the
    article was published. The evidence recited at length above does
    not compel the inference as a matter of law that one or more
    board members had knowledge of facts sufficient to make a
    reasonably prudent person suspicious, prior to August 2013, that
    Fernandez engaged in criminal activity in connection with the
    retirement plans.
    b.    Counts 3 and 4
    Counts 3 and 4 allege conflicts of interest in violation of
    Government Code section 1090 based on Fernandez’s role in
    advocating for the revision of the board bylaws and policies,
    hidden within which were highly lucrative extra-contractual
    benefits to him.
    Like the PARS plans, the board’s vote on the bylaw
    revisions occurred before August 2013. But the testimony of all
    board members demonstrated they were overwhelmed by the
    4,000 pages of material and unaware that buried within those
    materials were provisions, drafted in part by Fernandez, that
    gave him substantial additional financial benefits, including a
    $750,000 whole life insurance policy and accrual of extra days
    pay not otherwise provided for in his employment contract.
    Fernandez repeatedly reassured the board the proposed
    revisions were standard, had been reviewed by district counsel
    and were based on model bylaws used by districts throughout the
    26
    state. Fernandez also insisted the revisions were necessary to
    bring the district up to date since the existing bylaws and policies
    were decades old. The board relied on these misrepresentations
    in voting to approve the bylaws. There is no evidence any board
    member suspected potential criminal conduct, nor is there
    evidence to compel the inference as a matter of law that the
    board’s reliance on Fernandez’s misrepresentations was
    unreasonable. Only Ms. Ramos testified to her frustration and
    annoyance at having the revisions rushed through the approval
    process. She did not testify to having any suspicion of criminal or
    fraudulent misconduct.
    c.      Counts 6, 7 and 8
    Counts 6, 7 and 8 allege conflicts of interest in violation of
    Government Code section 1090 and Penal Code section 424,
    subdivision (a), based on Fernandez using district lawyers for his
    own personal benefit in drafting his contract extension and in
    presenting it to the board for a vote without full disclosure of all
    the facts material to their decision-making, and based on
    Fernandez’s exercise of the home loan option in his employment
    contract.
    Mr. Rojas was unsure how the home loan option could be
    exercised but assumed that if Fernandez chose to exercise it at
    some point, the loan documents would have to be presented to the
    board for review and approval. Ms. Pizano also thought that was
    required. She believed Fernandez would have no need to exercise
    the option. According to Ms. Ramos, Fernandez told her he had
    no intention of exercising the option. The contract stated the
    home loan option was intended to provide a loan only if
    Fernandez had to relocate and acquire a principal residence in
    order to reside in the district. Fernandez already resided in or
    27
    near the district. Fernandez sought only his own personal gain
    when he obtained the loan to buy an expensive home a short
    distance from his existing home.
    Fernandez used district lawyers to draft the loan
    documents, at district expense, rather than retain his own
    counsel, and he made revisions to the documents that were
    beneficial to him. He removed language giving the district
    authority to call the loan in the event he was terminated for
    cause, limiting the district to calling in the loan only in the event
    of his voluntary separation. Fernandez also disregarded
    counsel’s advice to obtain board approval of the loan documents
    and directed Mr. Hacker to sign the documents as the district’s
    designee. None of the board members saw the warrant for the
    $910,000 check paid to fund Fernandez’s loan because it was
    buried within in a 104-page warrant report on the board’s
    consent calendar and issued without a purchase order as was the
    normal procedure.
    There is no evidence any board member suspected
    potential criminal conduct related to Fernandez’s contract
    extension or his exercise of the home loan option, or to support
    the inference as a matter of law that the board should have
    discovered Fernandez’s self-dealing before August 2013 despite
    his fraudulent concealment of his criminal acts from the board.
    One may question the effectiveness of the board members,
    who served on a part-time basis, were largely inexperienced, and
    relied heavily on Fernandez to explain and educate them on the
    issues on which they were required to give their approval. But
    the evidence does not establish as a matter of law that the board
    knew or reasonably should have known Fernandez was
    scamming the district. And while Ms. Ramos had concerns before
    28
    2013 about the generous compensation and benefits provided to
    Fernandez that had raised public criticism from the teachers’
    union and the press, that does not prove as a matter of law that
    she knew or reasonably should have suspected Fernandez of
    criminal conduct.
    It was therefore error for respondent superior court to have
    resolved the statute of limitations as a matter of law and
    dismissed counts 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9. The motion should have
    been denied in its entirety. (Lopez, supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at
    p. 251 [“If the evidence is in conflict on the question or if
    defendant simply fails to establish that the statute has run as a
    matter of law, then the motion should be denied.”].)
    DISPOSITION
    The petition is granted. Respondent superior court is
    directed to vacate its order of January 30, 2020, in case
    No. YA096660 granting in part and denying in part Jose A.
    Fernandez’s motion pursuant to Penal Code section 995. The
    court is further directed to enter a new order denying the motion
    in its entirety. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court
    pursuant to rule 8.490(b)(2)(A) of the California Rules of Court.
    GRIMES, Acting P. J.
    WE CONCUR:
    STRATTON, J.
    WILEY, J.
    29
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B305058

Filed Date: 12/13/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/13/2021