People v. Jimenez CA4/1

California Court of Appeal Mar 28, 2014 No. D063938Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury that the defendant could not be convicted of both vehicle theft and receiving stolen property, because the prosecution's case was based on post-theft driving rather than the initial theft.

Issues

Whether the trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury that the defendant could not be convicted of both violating Vehicle Code section 10851 and receiving stolen property under Penal Code section 496d.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“If, on the other hand, a section 10851[, subdivision] (a) conviction is based on posttheft driving, a separate conviction . . . for receiving the same vehicle as stolen property is not precluded.”

“The trial court had no duty to instruct the jury that it was prohibited from convicting defendant of both driving the stolen car and receiving it as stolen property.”

Filed 3/28/14 P. v. Jimenez CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D063938

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD243887)

PEDRO JIMENEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Peter L.

Gallagher, Judge. Affirmed.

Michael Anthony Hernandez for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney

General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Scott C. Taylor and Charles C. Ragland,

Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury found Pedro Jimenez guilty of unlawfully taking or driving a stolen vehicle

(Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a);1 count 1); receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d; count

2); and failure to comply with a police officer's lawful order (§ 2800; count 3). On appeal,

1 All subsequent statutory references are to the Vehicle Code, unless otherwise specified.

Jimenez contends the trial court erred when it did not instruct the jury sua sponte that he could

not be simultaneously convicted of count 1 and count 2 for stealing and receiving the same

People v. Jimenez CA4/1

AI Brief

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D063938

PEDRO JIMENEZ,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

BACKGROUND

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

O'ROURKE, J.

IRION, J.

AI Brief