Skip to content
Name: People v. MacArthur
Case #: G035368
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 08/24/2006

A conviction for receiving stolen property must be reversed where the jury was not instructed with the definitions of "stolen" and "theft." Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a), requires that the property be stolen or obtained by theft, i.e., taken with the intent of depriving the owner of possession for a sufficiently extended time. Here, some evidence suggested that the property had been taken without the requisite intent. The appellant's girlfriend had given him her mother's jewelry to pawn, and the evidence showed that the appellant did not have the mother's permission to pawn the jewelry, but the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Smith
Case #: E037036
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 08/18/2006

The defendant was properly convicted of burglary after he forced his way into his estranged wife’s home, even though the house was community property. The defendant and his wife had jointly purchased the house during their marriage, but after the defendant assaulted his wife, she obtained a court order giving her temporary exclusive possession of the residence. The defendant was served with notice of the court order, and did not deny that his forcible entry into the house violated that order. However, he argued on appeal that while a family court order could turn an uninvited entry…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Sanghera
Case #: C051110
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 05/31/2006

Burglary conviction is supported by evidence that appellant entered a residence to commit a petit larceny. Appellant was a suspect in a car theft. He subsequently entered two different homes without consent, and changed into clothing stolen from the homes in an attempt to evade police. He was convicted of first degree burglary. On appeal, he argued that there was insufficient evidence of burglary because there was insufficient evidence that appellant intended to commit a felony when he entered the two houses. The appellate court rejected the argument and affirmed. Burglary is also defined as entering…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Shabtay
Case #: B179520
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 04/25/2006

Penal Code section 484e(b) precludes multiple convictions where the evidence shows that the defendant acquired access cards within any consecutive twelve-month period. The evidence at trial showed that the defendant had used the credit cards of eleven victims within one twelve-month period. The jury convicted him of multiple offenses, including two violations of section 484e(b). He argued on appeal that he could only be convicted of a single count under the terms of the statute. The Attorney General argued that the statute allowed for a separate charge during any twelve-month period whenever the defendant acquires enough…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Ryan
Case #: F047368
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 04/05/2006

The various subdivisions of Penal Code section 470 set forth different ways of committing forgery and are not greater or lesser included offenses. The defendant was convicted of violations of Penal Code section 470, subdivisions (a) and (d), for forgery of the same document under different code sections. After reviewing the legislative and judicial history of forgery laws in California, the court concluded that the various subdivisions of section 470 do not constitute greater or lesser offenses, but are merely different definitions of the same offense. Since the commission of any one or more of the…

View Full Summary
Name: Ferrizz v. Giurbino
Case #: 03-56137
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 12/23/2005

Where the jury could have rationally found the defendant guilty of burglary and grand theft of lost property, the defendant is not entitled to federal habeas relief. The petitioner was charged with several offenses related to his possession and sale of a ring that disappeared from a house where he had been doing construction work. He told police that he had found the ring outside of the house. He was convicted in California state court of burglary and grand theft of lost property, and in federal court he argued that the convictions violated due process because they were…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Gomez
Case #: G034752
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 12/14/2005
Subsequent History: Rev. Granted 3/22/06: S140612

Appellant broke into a restaurant and took money from an ATM inside the restaurant. When the restaurant manager entered, he heard appellant and went back outside to call 911. Appellant fled. When he realized the manager was following him in a car, he fired two gunshots at him. He was convicted of burglary and second degree robbery. On appeal, he argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the robbery because the manager was not present when appellant took the money. The appellate court disagreed and affirmed. A robbery occurs when a defendant…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Thomas
Case #: B169300
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 10/14/2005

Appellant and a companion snatched the victim's purse while she was loading groceries into her car in a parking lot. Appellant drove the car while her companion cut or broke the strap of the purse and removed it. On appeal, she argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for robbery; that the offense was nothing more than grand theft from the person. The appellate court rejected the argument and affirmed. A purse snatch can qualify as a robbery depending on the force used. Here, the companion tried to pull the purse away, and…

View Full Summary
Name: United States v. Allen
Case #: 04-50205
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 10/18/2005

Appellant was convicted of conspiracy to commit armed bank robbery, armed bank robbery, and using a firearm during a crime of violence. Appellant was present at a "meeting" where guns were present and their use discussed, and he had a longstanding friendship with a coconspirator who had participated in previous armed bank robberies. The appellate court held that there was sufficient evidence for a rational jury to conclude that the use of firearms during a bank robbery was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant; that a co-conspirator’s statement made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy is not testimonial…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Garza
Case #: S120551
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 05/19/2005

A conviction for receiving stolen property does not bar a conviction for unlawful post-theft driving. The defendant here was convicted of violations of both Penal Code section 496(a) and Vehicle Code section 10851(a), and the jury verdict for the latter did not specify whether it was based on the taking of the vehicle or on post-theft driving of the vehicle. The jury instructions did not require the jury to make such a finding. The California Supreme Court held that, considering the evidence at trial, it was not reasonably probable that a properly instructed jury would have found that the defendant…

View Full Summary