People v. Guertin

California Court of Appeal Jul 17, 1996 No. B095326Published

Before: Yegan

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court is not required to instruct the jury sua sponte on the lesser included offense of joyriding when the evidence shows the defendant kept the vehicle for an excessive time and distance, precluding a finding of mere temporary use.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury sua sponte on the lesser included offense of joyriding.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the trial court need not, even if requested, instruct the jury on the existence and definition of a lesser and included offense if the evidence was such that the defendant, if guilty at all, was guilty of something beyond the lesser offense.”

“Where, as here, the motor vehicle is kept for an excessive time or driven an excessive distance, the offense, as a matter of law, is not joyriding within the meaning of Penal Code section 499b.”

Opinion

YEGAN, J.

Stephen Duncan Guertin appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his conviction of unlawful driving or taking a motor vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), possession of a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a)), and the admission of a prior serious or violent felony conviction (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (d) and (e)). He was sentenced to state prison and erroneously contends: “The trial court erred in not instructing the jury sua sponte on the lesser included offense of ‘joyriding’ in addition to the instructions given on the Vehicle Code section 10851 charge[.]”

On March 18, 1994, appellant rented a Mazda Protege from the Bakersfield office of Standard Rent-A-Car. Four days later, appellant returned the Mazda and rented a Pontiac Sunbird. On March 24, 1994, he returned the Pontiac and rented a blue Toyota Corolla. The next day, he returned the

[507]

Toyota and terminated the rental contract. He was not authorized to take or drive Standard’s vehicles after that date.

On March 28, 1994, Standard discovered that a new beige Toyota Corolla was missing from its inventory. It reported the theft to the police.

On September 10, 1994, appellant was driving the beige Toyota when a police officer stopped him for speeding. Appellant told the officer he had recently purchased it. He gave the officer a new vehicle dealer notice which contained the vehicle’s identification number. The officer checked the number, discovered that the vehicle was reported stolen, and arrested appellant. The interior of the Toyota was very dirty. It looked like someone had been living in it. The odometer read approximately 24,000 miles. Methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia associated with the sale of drugs were found in the vehicle. Appellant’s urine tested positive for methamphetamine.

In defense, Pete Kennedy, appellant’s friend, testified that he went with appellant to Standard on several occasions. Kennedy claimed that he saw an employee of Standard hand appellant the keys to the beige Toyota.

People v. Guertin

AI Brief

YEGAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief