California Criminal Defense Blog

These three California offenses are very closely related...and commonly confused. This is because each one shares “elements” with the other. Let me explain.

Penal Code 211 PC California’s robbery law punishes the act of taking someone else’s property from that person’s “immediate presence” when accomplished by force or fear. Penal Code 211 PC California’s robbery law is the most serious of these three crimes.

If you don’t use force or fear to accomplish the taking…or if the property isn’t in the person’s “immediate presence”, then you simply have a theft. Grand theft if the property’s value exceeds $400, petty theft if the value is $400 or below.

And, despite common misconception, a burglary doesn’t necessarily involve stealing. A burglary takes place when you enter a building and already have the intent to commit a felony or to steal.

This means that if you go into a house…and intend to steal once inside…you have committed burglary and theft. If during that time, someone comes home and you threaten to harm him if he stops you from taking more property, you have committed robbery, burglary, and theft.

But if you enter a store, simply intending to shop…and only form the intent to steal once inside…you don’t commit a burglary. And whether you use force or fear to accomplish the taking will determine whether or not you are only guilty of theft or also of robbery.

Embezzlement under California law is the "fraudulent appropriation of property by a person to whom it has been entrusted." This used to be considered a distinct crime. But now California law treats embezzlement--and punishes it--merely as a variant of theft.

Embezzling property up to $400 in value gets prosecuted as a petty theft. Embezzling more than $400 worth of property may be punished as a grand theft. The former is a misdemeanor with a maximum sentence of a year county jail. The latter may be charged as a felony and can land someone in California state prison for up to three years.

So if they're charged under the same section, what's ultimately the distinction between embezzlement and standard theft offenses? The answer lies primarily in how the crimes get viewed by prosecutors, judges and juries.

Continue reading "California Embezzlement as an Aggravated Form of Theft" »

Stated in Penal Code 459, California burglary law makes it a crime to enter a structure with the intent to commit petty theft or any felony inside. A person need not actually commit the theft or felony. Merely entering with the requisite intent makes a burglary complete.

The central issue in many Penal Code 459 prosecutions is when the person acquired the intent. If s/he decided to commit the theft or felony only after entering the structure, this is not a burglary.

Take an example. Marge walks into a Target store, planning to steal some batteries. As long as she intended to steal the items at or before the moment she crossed through the entry doors, she committed a burglary. Even if she changes her mind once inside the store, and elects not to steal the batteries, she still committed a burglary once she entered with the criminal intent.

Now, suppose Marge enters the Target not planning to steal anything. But once inside, it occurs to her to steal some batteries. She conceals them in her purse and exits without paying. In this example, Marge committed a petty theft. But she did not commit burglary...because at the time she entered the structure, she had not yet formed the requisite criminal intent.

Continue reading "California Burglary Law and After-Acquired Intent" »

The term “crimes involving moral turpitude” refers to a category of crimes that are said to involve dishonesty, deceit, or a “readiness to do evil.” The list of such crimes ranges from murder to perjury to theft offenses.

Whether a crime is categorized as involving moral turpitude has significance primarily in two areas: court proceedings and immigration. As far as court, when a witness testifies, and that witness has prior criminal convictions, the judge must decide whether to allow the opposing party to impeach the witness with those convictions. Generally speaking, this prior misconduct is admissible only if it’s deemed to involve moral turpitude.

As far as immigration, there are several categories of crimes conviction of which triggers “immigration consequences”: deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, and denial of the chance to naturalize. “Crimes involving moral turpitude” is one category of offenses triggering these consequences.

Of course no one wants to get convicted of any criminal charge. But for many people, conviction for a crime of moral turpitude can be especially devastating.

The traditional common law definition of burglary is breaking and entering a structure with the intent of stealing goods or committing other crimes inside. Under Penal Code 459, California burglary law breaks with the common law by nixing the "breaking and entering" requirement. A person in this state still commits burglary when, for example, he walks into a house through a wide open door intending to commit a theft once inside.

But California law still retains the "breaking and entering" requirement with regard to one particular form of the crime: auto burglary. A person cannot be convicted of automobile burglary in this state unless it's proven that the vehicle was locked and secured and the burglar used force to gain entry.

By way of example, imagine that Bill enters a parked Camry believing there may be valuables in the car. But to his dismay, he finds nothing of value in the car and so he steals nothing. If the car had been locked, he committed an auto burglary. If the car had been unlocked, there's no auto burglary (though he still might be liable for a California criminal trespass charge). If Bill had stolen something, he'd also be liable for a theft offense.

The breaking and entering requirement is based on the legislative intent to make it more serious to break into a car than merely to steal something from it.

California Penal Code 496 defines Receiving Stolen Property as purchasing or otherwise taking possession of items you know to be stolen. As a general rule, this means someone else actually stole the goods and you subsequently received them. The original thief received stolen goods too when he stole them but he can't be charged with both the original theft and receiving stolen property. Otherwise Penal Code 496 could tag along with practically any theft charge.

However, California law allows one exception. This happens when a person steals an automobile and is later caught driving it. Under the case of People v Garza (35 Cal. 4th 866), this person can be charged with both Receiving Stolen Property and California automobile theft under Vehicle Code 10851.

The key is that for the state to add the PC 496 charge, it must be "post-theft driving." This means the person wasn't simply driving the car away from the place it was stolen (otherwise this would be part of the theft itself). But the courts have not clarified how much time must pass for the post-theft exception to apply. If the thief is caught driving the car several days later, it clearly would. But if just a few minutes, or an hour, or a few hours have passed, the law is not so clear.

The two most common California theft crimes are Penal Code 487 Grand Theft and Penal Code 488 Petty Theft. Both crimes are identical except for one distinction: the value of the property stolen. Theft of property worth more than $400 constitutes grand theft and property worth $400 or less is considered petty theft.

A grand theft charge is considerably more serious than petty theft. Penal Code 488 is a pure misdemeanor and carries a maximum sentence of 6 months county jail. Penal Code 487 on the other hand can be filed as a misdemeanor or felony. As a felony, California grand theft carries up to 3 years in state prison.

It makes sense that the value of the stolen merchandise should affect the seriousness of the charge; however, the $400 threshold is rather arbitrary. A mother who steals $405 worth of medicine to treat her ill children faces a much more serious charge than someone who, for example, steals $390 worth of video games just for fun.

Continue reading "Grand Theft vs. Petty Theft in California" »

The basic definition of burglary is the same in California and Nevada: entering a structure or vehicle intending to commit certain crimes once inside. But the two states differ in whether or not they distinguish between residential and commercial burglary.

In Penal Code 459 , California burglary law draws a distinction between first degree residential burglary, and second degree commercial burglary. Burglarizing a home can land someone in California Prison for six years, whereas burglarizing a commercial establishment carries only a four-year maximum sentence. Moreover, residential burglary is a strike under California’s Three Strikes laws.

Nevada burglary laws , as defined in NRS 205.060, make no distinction between burglarizing a residential or commercial structure. Nor does Nevada burglary law have first and second degree variations. Furthermore, the penalties for burglary of any type are substantially harsher in Nevada. Any burglary conviction in the Silver State carries potentially up to 10 years of Nevada prison time.

Las Vegas criminal defense attorney Michael Becker, who practices in both states, explains that “maximum sentences” for various crimes do tend to be longer in Nevada than California. Nevertheless, he says that judges retain a great deal of discretion to show leniency (or not) depending on all the facts of the particular case.

Police have arrested three men in connection with a string of armed follow-home robberies from casinos in Gardena and Commerce, the Daily Breeze reports. John Atkins, 21, of Barstow and his cousins – 18-year-old Raymond Little Jr. of Duarte and Gary Smith, 20, of Hacienda Heights – were arrested after they reportedly followed a Hollywood man home from the Commerce Casino.

The alleged crimes have been happening since Sept. 10, officials say. According to reports, in one of the incidents, one of the men punched a woman when she reached her home, knocked her to the ground and grabbed her purse with $10,000 of casino winnings. Most of the victims were women. The men were arrested after Orange County sheriff’s deputies reportedly used surveillance photos from a toll road to get the license plate number of one of the men’s vehicles.

Robbery is considered a violent crime because it implies force and physical intimidation. In this particular case, all three men are facing serious charges because most of these incidents involve assault and use of a deadly weapon – a handgun. If convicted, these men are looking at a very long time in prison.

Under Penal Code 211, robbery law in California is defined as the taking of property from the immediate possession of another, accomplished by means of force or fear. The California penalties for robbery are up to 5 years state prison per count, with an additional 10 years prison if a gun was used.

Whatever the nature of the violent crime you are charged with, you need an extremely skilled and knowledgeable Southern California criminal defense attorney to thoroughly and independently investigate your case. Our attorneys are former prosecutors and our investigators are former law enforcement officials. We know what it’s like to be on the other side. We know and understand how cops and DAs think and how they put a case together. We have an impeccable track record when it comes to getting acquittals for our clients or getting charges reduced. Call us today to discuss your case and legal options.