BEWARE OF CONTRACTING WITHOUT A CONTRACTOR’S LICENSE
By: Roman P. Mosqueda, Esq.
You are shopping at Home Depot, and are approached by a person who gives you his phone number, after telling you that he can do renovation and plumbing work at a good price.
You call that person to your residence for an estimate on a repair job. He quotes you a total price of $2,300 and requests a deposit of $1,000 from you.
You give him a check for $1,000. He removes your toilet and tells you that he will return. He comes back after a few days and requests an additional $650.00 You give him a check for $650.00
He does not complete the work and leaves your house. His phone number is no longer connected. He has cashed both checks.
These facts are from an actual Felony Complaint filed by a homeowner against a person who did contracting without a license obtained from the Contractors’ State License Board of the State of California.
Felony Complaint
Counts:
The Amended Felony Complaint filed on July 13, 2005, with the downtown Los Angeles Criminal Court, contains four counts: Count 1 on the crime of Grand Theft of Personal Property (money) exceeding Four Hundred Dollars, in violation of Penal Code Section 487(a), a Felony; Count 2 on the crime of Contracting Without License, in violation of Business & Professions Code Section 7028, a Misdemeanor; Count 3 on another crime of Grand Theft committed against a second victim; and Count 4 on another crime of Contracting Without License as to the second victim.
This Author represented the defendant, who contracted without a contractor’s license, and whose identity is withheld to protect his privacy. At the arraignment on July 13, 2995, before Commissioner Ronald Rose of Department 35, this Author entered a plea of not guilty on all four counts of the Amended Felony Complaint on behalf of the defendant.
Assistant District Attorney Kelly Howard filed the Amended Felony Complaint, but had no offer for disposition at that time. Com. Ronald Rose, upon recommendation of the prosecution and defense, set the preliminary hearing, 0 of 10, to August 9, 2005, at 8:30 a.m.
On August 9, 2005, the District Attorney was not ready to conduct the preliminary hearing, and sought and was granted continuance to August 19, 2005, 8 of 10, for preliminary hearing by Com. Ronald Rose.
Disposition of the Case:
At the hearing on August 19, 2005, the Assistant District Attorney presented the prosecution’s offer. After plea bargaining, this Author withdrew the not guilty plea, and entered a plea of no contest (equivalent to guilty) to Count 1, no jail time, three-year formal probation and restitution to the victims within one year. The Court sentenced the defendant per plea agreement. The Court ordered a Progress Report on October 21, 2005.
At the hearing on October 21, 2005, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 35 for the Progress Report, the Probation Officer, through a Supplemental Report, recommended that probation be continued on original terms and conditions, because the defendant-probationer is in compliance with all terms and conditions.
Indeed, the defendant had provided initial payment of $400.00 toward his financial obligation of restitution to the victims, and had provided DNA samples as a condition of probation.
And Com. Ronald Rose set another progress report hearing on April 20, 2006, at 8:30 a.m. to determine compliance of probation terms and conditions, and hopefully, close the case, subject to reopening for any probation violation.
The moral of this case is that contracting without a license is not only a misdemeanor, but may be a felony grand theft, if work is not completed. That is the bad news. The good news is that a first-time offender may be eligible for probation without jail time, provided he or she makes restitution payment to the victim(s).
(The Author, Roman P. Mosqueda, has been practicing criminal defense in State and Federal Courts for over twenty years in California.)