STARK v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SUTTER COUNTY
Filed 6/15/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sutter)
----
| ROBERT E. STARK, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SUTTER COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. |
C051073, C051074
(Super. Ct. Nos. CRMS051001, CRMS051031)
|
| RONDA G. PUTNAM, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SUTTER COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. |
C051075
(Super. Ct. No. CRMS051030)
|
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate. Ted H. Hansen, Judge. Peremptory writ issued.
Rothschild, Wishek, Chastaine & Sands, M. Bradley Wishek; Marilyn Fisher, for Petitioner Robert E. Stark.
Blackmon & Associates, Clyde M. Blackmon, Melinda J. Nye; Marilyn Fisher, for Petitioner Ronda Putman.
Story continue from Part II ………….
The question that remains is whether the People presented sufficient evidence to the grand jury for a reasonably prudent person to conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion that Stark violated section 424(a)(1) because he knew he did not have legal authority to transfer money from the County's general fund to the Waterworks District. We conclude they did.
Government Code section 29080 et seq. sets forth the laws governing a county's annual adoption of its final budget. Under those laws, the board of supervisors is required to hold a public meeting on the proposed budget. (Gov. Code, § 29080.) The county auditor, or his designated deputy, is required to attend the meeting. (Id., § 29083.) By a certain date following the conclusion of the hearing, the board is required to adopt a final budget â€
