 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Jansen3/27/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
The Solano County District Attorney filed an information charging appellant with unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)-count I), receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)-count II), and driving with a suspended or revoked license (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a)-count III). As to count I, the district attorney alleged, pursuant to Penal Code section 666.5 that appellant had previously been convicted of a violation of Vehicle Code section 10851. This enhancement allegation was bifurcated for a court trial, and the other charges proceeded to jury trial. After appellant was convicted by jury on all three counts, the trial court found the prior conviction allegation true. Appellant was sentenced to a total term of four years in state prison.
Appellant makes three main contentions: (1) his counsel was ineffective regarding his discovery obligations, resulting in adverse jury instructions and argument from the prosecutor that prejudiced appellant's defense; (2) the trial court prejudicially erred when it excluded certain evidence as hearsay; and (3) his conviction for receiving stolen property, a car license plate, must be reversed for insufficiency of the evidence. The People concede this last point, but contest appellant's other two arguments.
We agree with appellant's claims of error. We are unable to conclude these errors were harmless as to his conviction of unlawfully taking a vehicle, and therefore will reverse the judgment of conviction as to that offense. We must also reverse appellant's conviction for receiving stolen property, because this conviction is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm the conviction for driving on a suspended or revoked license, for that count was not affected by any prejudicial errors.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 28, 2001, Super Bowl Sunday, Shawn Underwood parked his teal blue Camaro on the street outside his girlfriend's residence. The following morning, the Camaro was gone, and he reported it stolen. Underwood had but one set of keys to the vehicle. He did not know appellant or his companion Keith Allen, and had not given them permission to take his car.
About three months later, on April 29, 2001, Roderick Neal, a City of Vallejo police officer, noticed a teal blue Camaro making a sudden U- turn with its door wide open. He also noticed the vehicle did not have a front license plate, and he therefore stopped the vehicle. Appellant was the driver, and there was a passenger in the front seat named Keith Allen.
Officer Neal learned from radio dispatch that the license plates on the Camaro were clear, but that the plates had not been issued for that particular vehicle. He also learned that the Camaro had been reported stolen. When asked for his license, appellant told Neal he did not have a valid driver's license, since it had been suspended. Appellant was arrested. Appellant had a key in his pocket, and Neal was able to start the Camaro with the key. Neal noticed the ignition appeared to be "loose," suggesting it had been filed or punched. At trial, Neal offered the opinion that people who steal cars will often put a different license plate on the vehicle to try to prevent law enforcement from discovering the car had been stolen.
Evidence was produced showing Underwood's
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|