Shugar v. Davi
Filed 7/12/06 Shugar v. Davi CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
| ALLEN D. SHUGAR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JEFF DAVI, as Real Estate Commissioner, Defendant and Respondent. | B184628 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS 094220) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Dzintra Janavs, Judge. Affirmed. Order granting petition for writ of supersedeas vacated.
Allen D. Shugar, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, W. Dean Freeman, Mark Richelson, and Diane Spencer Shaw, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent.
* * * * * *
Respondent Jeff Davi, Real Estate Commissioner of the State of California, revoked appellant Allen D. Shugar's real estate broker's license. The trial court denied appellant's petition for a writ of mandate that sought to set aside respondent's decision. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant holds a license as a real estate broker; he was first licensed in 1993. On June 17, 2002, appellant pleaded nolo contendere to four violations of the Unemployment Insurance Code. The offenses were charged as felonies and alleged that between February 2, 1993 and May 1, 1996, appellant willfully failed to make contributions required by the code (Unemp. Ins. Code, § 2108), knowingly withheld deductions but failed to pay such deductions to the state (§ 2110), failed to withhold in trust the deductions required by the code (§ 2110.5), and willfully failed to pay the tax required by the code (§ 2118.5). The information charging these violations was filed in October 1996. Under the terms of the plea bargain entered into in 2002,[1] the charges were reduced to misdemeanors, and appellant was placed on three years informal probation on the conditions of making restitution of $30,843.97 and serving five days in jail. Appellant undertook to make restitution at the rate of at least $100/month.[2]
The circumstances that gave rise to appellant's conviction are, in substance, not in dispute. Appellant states that he was engaged in the practice of law in Los Angeles, and was a member of the California Bar continuously from 1966 to 1996. Appellant asserts that in 1990 an associate left his law firm, taking cases with her, which affected his income dramatically and adversely. In addition, appellant asserts that between 1992 and 1994, he was â€
