Filed 9/18/13 P. v. Ayyad CA2/6 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 SIX 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v. 

EZZAT AYYAD, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

2d Crim. No. B245507 

(Super. Ct. No. 2009017255) 

(Ventura County) 

 The trial court, sitting without a jury, found Ezzat Ayyad guilty of one 

count of grand theft by defrauding a public housing authority. (Pen. Code, § 487i.)1 The 

trial court also found true the special allegation that the taking was in excess of $50,000. 

(§ 12022.6.) We affirm. 

FACTS 

 The Ventura County Housing Authority (Housing Authority) administers 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rent subsidies for low income 

families. HUD provides regulations for the subsidies. 

 The amount of the subsidy is determined by the family's composition and 

all family income. The client must report all changes to family, composition, income or 

 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
2 

assets within 10 days. The head of household has to live in the home full time. If the 

head of household is out of the home for more than 14 days, he or she must notify the 

Housing Authority in writing; if more than 30 days the Housing Authority must authorize 

the absence. If someone is staying at the house two or three days a week, it should be 

reported. If a head of household wanted to live 50 percent of the time in Egypt and 50 

percent of the time in the United States, it would not be permitted. Depending on the 

severity of the omissions or misinformation, a person could be terminated from the 

housing program. 

 Emtethal Harmina applied for rent subsidy voucher. Because of 

language and other difficulties, the Housing Authority asked Harmina to execute a power 

of attorney so someone could act on her behalf. Harmina appointed Ayyad as her 

attorney-in-fact. 

 Ayyad filled out Harmina's original application on August 13, 2002, and an 

annual recertification for the subsidy from 2003 to 2007. The applications showed that 

Harmina, Ayyad, and Sarah, Ayyad's daughter and Harmina's granddaughter, were the 

only persons living in the house. Ayyad disclosed only one checking account with a 

balance of between $300 to $400. 

 From 2002 to 2007, Ayyad failed to disclose: that Harmina was living in 

Egypt at least 50 percent of the time; that Ayyad's ex-wife, Hanan Botros, was living in 

the home; that Botros had a substantial income; and that Ayyad was earning rental 

income. In addition, Ayyad did not disclose on recertification forms that he had a 

Canadian bank account and that he held securities. 

 The parties stipulated that Botros earned income as an office manager for a 

doctor as follows: in 2002 she earned $66,000; in 2003 she earned $93,479.50; in 2004 

she earned $100,840; in 2005 she earned $107,322; in 2006 she earned $107,890. Botros 

testified in 2007 she earned $5,800 biweekly. 

 Shirley Bumpus, a Housing Authority fraud investigator, testified that if she 

had discovered that Botros was living with Ayyad and that Harmina was living in Egypt, 
3 

the account would have been terminated. If Botros earned the stipulated salaries between 

2003 and 2007, the account would have been terminated. The $66,000 Botros earned in 

2002 might have disqualified them. 

 On April 17, 2007, a Housing Authority investigator interviewed Ayyad's 

daughter, Sarah, at her home. He interviewed her again a few days later at her school. 

Sarah was nine years old at the time. Sarah told the investigator that she lived with her 

mother and father her whole life. She said Harmina did not live with them. She was not 

sure how long Harmina had lived in Egypt, but she thought it was her whole life. She 

said Harmina had been visiting them for about two weeks and she thought Harmina had 

last visited about five years ago. 

 Special agent David Wales with Homeland Security performed a 

computerized search of Harmina's travel history from 2002 to 2007. The records show 

Harmina left the United States on November 23, 2002, and returned in January 2006. 

She left again in February 2006 and returned on March 28, 2007. 

 Ayyad's sister-in-law told a Housing Authority investigator that between 

2000 and 2005 Harmina lived with Ayyad about 50 percent of the time. 

 A search warrant executed at the residence in April 2007 found evidence 

that Botros lived there. The evidence included financial papers, clothing, and toiletries. 

Investigators also found numerous documents showing Ayyad lived there. Investigators 

discovered only two beds in the residence. Sarah slept in one and someone slept with 

Ayyad in the master bedroom. When an investigator asked Botros about sleeping with 

Ayyad in the same bed she said, "[t]hat doesn't mean anything." Investigators found 

Harmina lying on a couch in the family room. A suitcase filled with clothes was right 

next to her. 

 Bumpus testified that the total housing benefits extended to Harmina from 

May 2003 through May 2007 was $62,662.59. The total received for the year beginning 

June 1, 2006, and ending May 31, 2007, was $16,880. 
4 

DISCUSSION 

I. 

 Ayyad contends the one-year sentence enhancement imposed pursuant to 

section 12022.6, subdivision (a)(1) is not supported by substantial evidence. 

 At the time Ayyad was sentenced, section 12022.6, subdivision (a)(1) 

provided for a one-year sentence enhancement if the loss from taking property in the 

commission of a felony exceeds $50,000.2

 Any money that the government would have 

been obligated to pay had the fraud not occurred is not included in calculating the 

$50,000. (People v. Crow (1993) 6 Cal.4th 952, 961-962.) 

 In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence we view the evidence in a light 

most favorable to the judgment. (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578.) We 

discard evidence that does not support the judgment as having been rejected by the trier 

of fact for lack of sufficient verity. (People v. Ryan (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1304, 1316.) 

We have no power on appeal to reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of 

witnesses. (People v. Stewart (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 785, 790.) We must affirm if we 

determine that any rational trier of fact could find the elements of the crime or 

enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Johnson, supra, at p. 578.)

 Bumpus testified that the total amount of benefits extended from May 2003 

through May 2007 was $62,662.59. Of that amount, $16,880 was extended from June 1, 

2006 to May 31, 2007. Bumpus also testified that if Ayyad had disclosed how much 

Botros was making between 2003 and 2007, the account would have been terminated. 

 Ayyad points out that the parties stipulated to Botros's salary only through 

2006. He argues we must deduct the $16,880 paid in 2007 for lack of evidence as to 

what Botros was paid that year. It is true the stipulation only went through 2006. But 

Botros testified in 2007 she earned $5,800 biweekly as an officer manager, more than she 

 2

 The amount has been increased to $65,000. The amendment is not 

retroactive. (Stats. 2007, ch. 420, §§ 1 & 2.) 
5 

made in any other year. That is sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that 

Ayyad fraudulently obtained the entire $62,662.59. 

 Ayyad argues there is no substantial evidence Harmina was not living in the 

house in 2007. But the trial court could reasonably conclude from Bumpus's testimony 

that Botros's income alone would have terminated the account. Thus evidence that 

Harmina was not living in the house was not necessary. 

 In any event, Homeland Security records show that between February 23, 

2002, and March 28, 2007, Harmina was in the United States for less than one month. In 

April 2007, when investigators searched the house, they found Harmina lying on a couch 

with her suitcase nearby. Investigators found only two beds in the house, one for Sarah 

and one for Ayyad and Botros. Sarah told an investigator that Harmina did not live with 

them, she just visited. A reasonable trier of fact could conclude Harmina was never 

anything more than a temporary visitor to the house. 

II. 

 Ayyad contends the sentencing enhancement is unauthorized because the 

aggregate loss did not arise from a common scheme or plan. 

 Section 12022.6, subdivision (b) allows the amount of the losses to be 

aggregated only where the amount "arise from a common scheme or plan." Here all the 

money was taken from the same victim, the Housing Authority, by the same method, 

false statements made in voucher applications, and for the same purpose, to obtain 

housing vouchers. That is more than ample evidence to support the trial court's finding 

of a common scheme or plan. 

 Ayyad's reliance on People v. Bailey (1961) 55 Cal.2d 514, is misplaced. 

There, the defendant was charged with theft of county welfare funds under false 

pretences. He received a total of $3,064, in installments of less than $200 each. The 

court instructed the jury: "[I]f several acts of taking are done pursuant to an initial design 

to obtain from the owner property having a value exceeding $200 and if the value of the 

property taken exceeds $200, there is one crime of grand theft, but that if there is no such 
6 

initial design, the taking of any property having a value not exceeding $200 is petty 

theft." (Id. at p. 518.) The jury found the defendant guilty of grand theft. Our Supreme 

Court determined the jury was properly instructed, and reversed the trial court's grant of a 

new trial. 

 Here the trial court could reasonably conclude Ayyad's initial plan was to 

take as much as he could get. He did not stop on his own; he only stopped when he got 

caught. Thus Ayyad's initial plan encompassed the entire $62,662.59. If anything, 

Bailey supports the trial court's determination here that the amounts received by Ayyad 

should be aggregated. 

 Ayyad's reliance on People v. Sanford (1940) 16 Cal.2d 247, and People v. 

Rabe (1927) 202 Cal. 409, is also misplaced. In both cases our Supreme Court upheld 

the trier of fact's finding that multiple acts of theft were separate and thus supported 

multiple convictions. 

 Here, as in the cases relied on by Ayyad, we affirm the trier of fact's 

determination, as supported by substantial evidence. 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

 GILBERT, P. J. 

We concur: 

 YEGAN, J. 

 PERREN, J. 
Bruce A. Young, Judge 

Superior Court County of Ventura 

______________________________ 

 William Paul Melcher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant. 

 Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant 

Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle, 

Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Deputy Attorney General, 

for Plaintiff and Respondent.