Error and/or relief
The jury convicted the defendant of grand theft of personal property and embezzlement by a clerk for stealing money from his employer. One of the convictions must be vacated, because they constitute different statements of the same offense.
First Holding:
The was improperly convicted of two theft offenses (grand theft and embezzlement by a clerk) in violation of section 954 because they were different statements of the same offense. Convictions for both grand theft by larceny (sec. 484(a)) and embezzlement (sec. 503) based on the same course of conduct cannot stand under section 954.
Authority:
People v. Vidana (2016) 1 Cal.5th 632, 635, 649-651
Second Holding:
Appellate courts have employed different approaches for remedying a section 954 violation.
Under the circumstances of this case, we deem it appropriate to follow the Shiga approach. We will therefore reverse the judgment and remand the matter to the trial court with instructions to reinstate the conviction on one of the two counts to be selected by the People, then resentence the defendant on only a single count of conviction.
At the resentencing, any fees imposed by the court must also reflect the appropriate amounts for only a single count of conviction.
Authority:
People v. Shiga (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 466, 481, 483–484 (Shiga) [reversing two duplicative arson convictions and remanding for resentencing with instructions to trial court to reinstate the conviction on the one selected by the People]
People v. Coyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 209, 217–218, 219 [consolidating three duplicative special circumstance murder counts into single count, reversing and vacating the other two murder convictions, and affirming the judgment as modified]