People v. Calistro
F070176
Cal. Ct. App.Jun 2, 2017Background
- Defendant David Calistro was charged with Vehicle Code §10851(a) (taking/driving a vehicle), Penal Code §§496/496d (receiving stolen property/vehicle), §466 (burglary tool), and Vehicle Code §14601.2 (driving with suspended license); he admitted a prior prison-term allegation under §667.5(b).
- At trial defendant was found in the driver’s seat of a reported-stolen Honda at a 7‑Eleven with a shaved key in the ignition and the victim’s wallet/cards in the car; defendant said he borrowed the car from a friend, Ben.
- Defendant filed a Pitchess motion for Officer Beltran’s personnel records; the trial court conducted an in camera review and disclosed limited records; the Court of Appeal reviewed that sealed record and found no abuse of discretion.
- The jury convicted on §10851(a) (count 2—later renumbered) and §496(a) (receiving credit cards, count 3) and §466 (misdemeanor); no jury verdict was obtained on the charged §666.5(a) count, but the trial court nevertheless sentenced on §666.5(a).
- The Court of Appeal vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, directing the trial court to apply §666.5(a)’s sentencing provision to the §10851(a) conviction (but not to enter a separate §666.5(a) conviction), and upheld the §496(a) conviction and the court’s refusal to stay the §496(a) term under §654.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused its discretion in handling Pitchess records | Records disclosed were appropriate; court acted within law | Trial counsel sought broader disclosure of Officer Beltran’s records for dishonesty | No abuse of discretion; appellate independent review upheld trial court’s in camera rulings |
| Whether §666.5(a) is a substantive offense allowing a separate conviction | Court and People treated §666.5(a) as raising punishment for vehicle theft; sentencing under §666.5(a) is proper | §666.5(a) does not create a separate substantive offense; conviction on §666.5(a) improper | §666.5(a) is not a substantive offense; no jury verdict supported a §666.5(a) conviction—vacate sentence and remand to resentence under §666.5(a) sentencing rules but do not enter separate conviction |
| Whether single‑larceny or taking/receiving doctrine bars conviction for receiving credit cards (§496) when defendant also convicted under §10851(a) | If §10851(a) conviction is a theft (taking) it would bar receiving; court instructed jury that any §10851(a) verdict barred receiving | Defendant argued taking and receiving occurred in one indivisible act (single larceny) so §496(a) conviction should be barred | Jury instruction (CALCRIM 3516) was legally flawed by not distinguishing taking vs post‑theft driving; nevertheless evidence overwhelmingly supported post‑theft driving, so §496(a) conviction stands |
| Whether sentence on §496(a) (receiving cards) should be stayed under §654 | People argued separate objectives supported separate punishments | Defendant argued single objective (steal car) makes acts indivisible so §654 bars multiple punishments | Substantial evidence showed separate objectives (driving/joyriding vs receipt/concealment/use of cards); §654 does not bar separate punishments |
Key Cases Cited
- Pitchess v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.3d 531 (discusses discovery of peace‑officer personnel records and in camera review)
- People v. Garza, 35 Cal.4th 866 (distinguishes §10851(a) taking vs post‑theft driving and effect on receiving convictions)
- People v. Ortega, 19 Cal.4th 686 (single larceny doctrine principles)
- People v. Strong, 30 Cal.App.4th 366 (analyzed when §10851 driving is separate from taking and allows dual convictions)
- People v. Jaramillo, 16 Cal.3d 752 (taking and receiving doctrine—cannot be convicted of both theft and receiving same property)