California Court of Appeal Dec 5, 2014 No. E061026Unpublished
Filed 12/5/14 P. v. Figueroa CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Appellant, E061026
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1305754)
BEATRIZ LILIANA FIGUEROA, OPINION
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Helios (Joe) Hernandez,
Judge. Reversed.
Paul E. Zellerbach, District Attorney, and Matt Reilly, Deputy District Attorney,
for Plaintiff and Appellant.
No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.
The People appeal after the trial court dismissed the information as to three of the
charges stated against defendant and respondent Beatriz Liliana Figueroa. The People
1
contend that the trial court erred in dismissing the charges, which were supported by
sufficient evidence adduced at the preliminary hearing. We reverse.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The preliminary hearing evidence showed that victim Brian Erman owned a two-
Defendant’s argument misconstrues the meaning of Ceja. The Ceja court did not
hold that an accused may not be charged with receiving stolen property as to certain
property, if the evidence shows that the accused was the actual thief. Rather, the
common law rule, now embodied in Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a), precludes
dual conviction of both theft and receiving stolen property as to the same property.
However, it does permit “a ‘thief in fact’ to be convicted of receiving the stolen property,
so long as he or she is not also convicted of the theft.” (People v. Ceja, supra, 49 Cal.4th
1, 6.) “[W]hether theft or receiving is the ‘greater’ or ‘lesser’ crime is a matter that the
Legislature has generally committed to the discretion of the prosecutor. Receiving stolen
property may ordinarily be charged either as a misdemeanor or a felony, at the
10
prosecutor’s election. In any case, the prosecutor has the discretion to decide which
offenses to charge. The courts do not generally supervise these ‘purely prosecutorial
function[s].’ [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 7.) It was within the prosecutor’s discretion to elect
to charge defendant with three counts of receiving stolen property, as felonies, rather than
three counts of misdemeanor petty theft.
The only remaining issue is whether there was some evidence to support a finding
as to the essential elements of a receiving stolen property offense. Defendant may be
held to answer on a charge of receiving stolen property if the evidence at the preliminary
hearing supports probable cause to believe that defendant (1) withheld stolen property
from the owner, (2) knew that the property was stolen, and (3) knew of the presence of
the property. (See CALCRIM No. 1750.)
As to the incident of May 2013, the surveillance video showed defendant opening
the box, selecting a quantity of money from the box and setting it aside, and then
returning to take the money she had set aside. Defendant clearly withheld the property
from the owner, she obviously knew it was stolen, because she had stolen it herself, and
she knew of its presence in her possession, also because she had stolen it herself.
The incidents of March and April 2013 followed a similar pattern, although those
incidents were not recorded on video. In each of the three incidents, defendant was
admitted to the house to clean. Erman counted the money in the box before defendant
came. Money was missing when the victim came home. In the meantime, the security
system had been armed, and no one else was recorded by the system as coming into the
11
house, except that, on one occasion, Erman’s son had come home and gone out again.
Both the son and the wife denied taking the money, and in fact they had brought their
suspicions to Erman’s attention. The manner of perpetration was the same in all three
incidents. The trial court’s hyperskepticism, that there was nothing other than a “strong
hunch” that defendant had taken the money, was belied by the actual evidence.
Defendant herself admitted taking money on two occasions (April and May), and she was
filmed taking money in May. Defendant also admitted a motive for taking the money: to
pay medical bills. It had to be more than mere coincidence that money went missing
precisely on the dates when defendant was the only non-family member admitted to the
home.
Drawing every rational inference in favor of the information, the evidence was
sufficient to support a rational belief that defendant committed three acts of receiving
stolen property. The trial court improperly dismissed the charges of receiving stolen
property in counts 3, 4, and 5.
DISPOSITION
The evidence at the preliminary hearing was sufficient to support a rational ground
for assuming that three offenses of receiving stolen property had been committed, and
that defendant had committed them. The decision to charge three counts of receiving
stolen property rather than three counts of petty theft was a matter left to the prosecutor’s
discretion. An accused who is a principal in the theft may, even according to the terms of
12
Penal Code section 496, be convicted of receiving stolen property; only dual conviction is
precluded.
The trial court’s order dismissing the three counts of receiving stolen property is
reversed; the trial court is directed to reinstate the charges as to counts 3, 4, and 5 of the
information.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER J. We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
MILLER J.
13
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing was sufficient to support charges of receiving stolen property and that the prosecutor has the discretion to charge a defendant with receiving stolen property even if the defendant is the actual thief, provided there is no dual conviction for both theft and receiving the same property.
Issues
Whether the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing was sufficient to support charges of receiving stolen property.
Whether a defendant who is the actual thief can be charged with receiving stolen property.
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the receiving stolen property counts based on a lack of sufficient evidence.
Disposition. reversed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The Ceja court did not hold that an accused may not be charged with receiving stolen property as to certain property, if the evidence shows that the accused was the actual thief.”
“It was within the prosecutor’s discretion to elect to charge defendant with three counts of receiving stolen property, as felonies, rather than three counts of misdemeanor petty theft.”
“The trial court’s order dismissing the three counts of receiving stolen property is reversed; the trial court is directed to reinstate the charges as to counts 3, 4, and 5 of the information.”