Error and/or relief
There was insufficient evidence to support the conviction on count 2, and there are errors in the abstract of judgment that must be corrected.
First Holding:
The defendant was charged with taking a vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851 and with receiving stolen property (the same vehicle) under Penal Code section 496d(a). He was convicted of both counts. Though there was sufficient evidence that he took the vehicle, there was no evidence on what he did with it before its discovery. The evidence supports the theory that defendant was on one continuous journey away from the locus of the theft’ with the golf cart after taking it from the company premises until it was placed at the location from which the victim later retrieved it.
Authority:
People v. Strong (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 366, 375
Second Holding:
Where a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a criminal conviction, we apply the substantial evidence standard of review. Accordingly, we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
While substantial evidence may consist of inferences, such inferences must be a product of logic and reason and must rest on the evidence; inferences that are the result of mere speculation or conjecture cannot support a finding.
Authority:
People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1212
People v. Shively (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 460, 468
Kuhn v. Department of General Services (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1627, 1633
Third Holding:
Vehicle Code section 10851(a) proscribes a wide range of conduct. A person can violate Vehicle Code section 10851(a) either by taking a vehicle with the intent to steal it or by driving it with the intent only to temporarily deprive its owner of possession (i.e., joyriding). A taking is complete when the driving is not part of the escape from the scene of the theft.
Authority:
People v. Garza (2005) 35 Cal.4th 866, 871, 876
People v. Calistro (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 387, 395
Fourth Holding:
A person who violates section 10851(a) by taking a car with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession, and who is convicted of that offense on that basis, cannot also be convicted of receiving the same vehicle as stolen property. If, on the other hand, a section 10851(a) conviction is based on posttheft driving, a separate conviction under section 496(a) for receiving the same vehicle as stolen property is not precluded.
Authority:
People v. Garza (2005) 35 Cal.4th 866, 871, 876
Fifth Holding:
When a defendant is improperly convicted of both stealing and receiving the same stolen property, the theft conviction should be upheld and the receiving conviction reversed.
Authority:
People v. Ceja (2010) 49 Cal.4th 1, 10
Sixth Holding:
There were numerous errors in the abstract of judgment, in which the recitation of prison terms imposed were quite different than orally pronounced. Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. The abstract must be corrected.
Authority:
People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385