226 Cal. App. 4th 108
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- May 2007: defendants refinanced their home for about $700,000, with the lender secured by a deed of trust including fixtures.
- The home had extensive exterior and interior upgrades; appraised value estimated at $705,000.
- June 2010: when foreclosure approached, defendants remained in the home; they allegedly damaged the property while vacating.
- June 2010: after eviction, lender acquired the property at foreclosure; a third-party sale in 2010 did not occur at foreclosure, and insurer paid part of the loss.
- Evidence showed extensive removal/damage to fixtures and improvements, storage of items, and advertisements for sale of fixtures; jury convicted Acosta for violating § 502.5 with a great taking enhancement of over $65,000.
- Probation was imposed (five years) with jail time, later challenged on probation-cost payment and other legal issues on appeal; court modified probation order regarding costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 502.5 is unconstitutionally vague | People argues statute is not vague | Acosta argues statute is vague | Not unconstitutionally vague |
| Whether the jury definition of fixture was proper | People's view supported by Civil Code 660 | Defendants urged alternative Moller standard | Civil Code 660 definition properly used; instruction adequate |
| Whether great taking enhancement applies to aider/abettor | People contends enhancement extends to co‑participants | Acosta argues it should be limited to personal taking | Great taking applies to all participants with requisite knowledge/intent (vicarious liability) when underlying § 502.5 causes >$65,000 loss |
| Whether Walker-Fulton framework governs vicarious liability for this enhancement | N/A | N/A | Court adopts Fulton’s broader vicarious liability for great taking; Walker limits to deadly weapons/GBI, not this context |
| Whether probation costs must be paid separate from probation | Costs should be part of probation as imposed | Costs should be a separate judgment | Probation costs must be separate from probation condition; court to enter separate order for costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Crocker National Bank v. City and County of San Francisco, 49 Cal.3d 881 (Cal. 1989) (fixture test focused on permanence and objective manifestations of permanence)
- Walker v. Firestone, 18 Cal.3d 232 (Cal. 1976) (governs personal use requirement for certain sentencing enhancements)
- Fulton v. People, 155 Cal.App.3d 91 (Cal. App. 1984) (great taking applies to accomplices; not limited to personal taking)
- Rener v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.App.4th 258 (Cal. App. 1994) (discussed vicarious liability for sentencing enhancements)