Appellant could only be sentenced on the greater offense where he was convicted of both petty theft and receiving stolen property. Ceja was convicted of petty theft and receipt of the same stolen property. On appeal, he argued that he could not be convicted of theft and receiving stolen property he obtained in the theft, and that his conviction for receiving stolen property had to be reversed. The prosecutor conceded that Ceja was erroneously convicted of both crimes, but argued that because receiving stolen property is the greater offense, the court should reverse the petty theft conviction. The appellate court agreed with the prosecutor, and reversed the petty theft conviction. The reasoning of People v. Moran (1970) 1 Cal.3d 755, which held that where a person has been convicted of both a greater and lesser included offense, the court must sentence on the greater offense, applies, even though theft is not a lesser included offense of receiving stolen property. (J. McDonald dissented, finding the lesser included offense analogy not persuasive.)