People v. Vallejo

California Court of Appeal Jun 21, 1990 No. No. F011458Published

Before: Stone

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A defendant cannot be convicted of both burglary and receiving the same stolen property, and because the defendant's plea to receiving stolen property was ambiguous, the court applied the rule precluding dual convictions.

Issues

Whether a defendant may be convicted of both burglary and receiving the property stolen during those burglaries.
Whether a conviction for receiving stolen property under Penal Code section 496 is valid when the defendant is also convicted of the underlying theft.

Disposition. reversed in part and affirmed in part

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“By well-established rule, a defendant may not be convicted of stealing and receiving the same property, though the People may charge both crimes.”

“We therefore resolve in defendant’s favor the ambiguity presented by the information, facts, and pleas. In so doing, we are bound by People v. Jaramillo, supra, 16 Cal.3d 752, which expressly precludes conviction of both the burglaries”

Opinion

STONE (W. A.), J. Because defendant’s sole issue on appeal is that he cannot stand convicted of three counts of burglary and also stand convicted [748]of three counts of receiving property stolen in those burglaries, our statement of the case and facts will be brief.

Defendant stands convicted of numerous charges and enhancements, among them three counts of residential burglary (Pen. Code,1 § 459) and three counts of receiving stolen property (§ 496). These convictions followed negotiated pleas.

Defendant and the People agree the preliminary hearing transcript reveals the stolen property involved in three of the burglaries was the same property involved in three receiving stolen property convictions, and in each instance defendant sold the stolen property to an undercover detective as part of a “sting” operation.

At the time defendant entered each of his guilty pleas to the violations of section 496, the court asked defendant how he would plead “to the charge of receiving stolen property” or “to receiving stolen property.”

Discussion

Defendant argues he could not be convicted of three counts of selling the goods taken in three of the burglaries for which he stands convicted.

Section 496 provides, in pertinent part: “Every person who buys or receives any property which has been stolen or which has been obtained in any manner constituting theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, or who conceals, sells, withholds or aids in concealing, selling, or withholding any such property from the owner, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, is punishable by imprisonment in a state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year; ...”

By well-established rule, a defendant may not be convicted of stealing and receiving the same property, though the People may charge both crimes. It is for the trier of fact to decide which of the acts defendant is guilty of having committed: those necessary to be a thief, or those necessary to conceal, withhold or receive stolen property. (People v. Jaramillo (1976) 16 Cal.3d 752, 757-758 [129 Cal.Rptr. 306, 548 P.2d 706].)

In People v. Jackson (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 533 [144 Cal.Rptr. 199], we held the principle of Jaramillo applicable to preclude convicting a thief of “concealing, withholding or selling” the goods he had stolen. The People argued selling is a distinct act from receiving, withholding or concealing,

People v. Vallejo

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief