California v. Martinez
Annotate this CaseA jury found appellants-defendants Marcellus Lee, Daniel Romero and Francisco Martinez, Jr. guilty of fraud in the offer or sale of commodities. Lee and Romero were also convicted of conspiracy and grand theft of personal property. The jury found that the takings exceeded certain dollar amounts and that the victims' losses were in excess of $150,000. The trial court subsequently granted the defendants' motions for a new trial on some of the counts and dismissed other counts for insufficiency of the evidence. The State appealed. In Lee, the Court of Appeal concluded the trial court abused its discretion in reversing the jury's verdicts. The Court reversed the trial court's orders and remanded the case with instructions to reinstate the verdicts rendered by the jury and sentence the defendants accordingly. In the interests of justice, the Court ordered the proceedings on remand to be heard before a trial judge other than the judge whose orders were reviewed on appeal. On remand, at the State's request, the sentencing court dismissed the counts on which the defendants were subject to retrial. The court sentenced Romero to a total of seven years in prison. Martinez received a one-year jail sentence and a five-year probation term. Lee was sentenced to a total of five years in prison. In the this appeal, Appellants asserted there was not sufficient evidence to support their convictions for commodities fraud because they entered into money management contracts with their clients, not contracts for the sale or purchase of commodities. Appellants claimed the trial court prejudicially erred by failing to instruct the jury that scienter was an element of the offense of commodities fraud. They also contended reversal was required because the sentencing court refused to consider a motion for a new trial on grounds not decided by the trial court. The State conceded certain sentencing errors, and that the trial court erred when it did not instruct the jury that scienter was an element of the offense of commodities fraud. However, regarding scienter, the State argued the error was harmless. The State asked the Court of Appeal to review the possibility the sentencing court may not have imposed a mandatory fine under Penal Code section 186.11, subdivision (c). After review, the Court concluded the restitution award to Ricky Lutz was incorrectly determined and vacated Romero's conviction on count seven and remanded for resentencing. Otherwise, the Court found no error and affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.