43 Cal.App.5th 1
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Early on May 20, 2018, a security guard observed an unauthorized person start and (he said) drive a motorized container-movement device (described as a “yard goat”/tractor) around a locked private storage yard for ~10–15 minutes.
- Deputies arrived, found defendant Jhyy Demond Chubbuck alone in the cabin, and arrested him; he admitted starting the ignition but denied putting the device in gear or driving it around the lot.
- The device was used to move shipping containers within the yard; the manager testified it was capable of hauling containers on a highway but was not licensed for public-street use and only authorized drivers could operate it.
- Defendant was charged with unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle (Veh. Code § 10851). A bifurcated hearing convicted him of a prior federal conviction alleged as a strike; exhibit packet admitted at the hearing was not included in the appellate record.
- Jury convicted; trial court found the strike and a prison prior; sentence imposed totaled seven years (three-year base doubled for strike + one-year prison prior). Court remanded only to correct defendant’s name on the abstract; judgment otherwise affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Chubbuck’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motorized yard device is a “vehicle” under Veh. Code § 10851 (and § 670 definition) | § 670’s "may" language means a device that can be used on a highway qualifies; device could potentially haul containers on a highway so it is a vehicle | Device was enterprise-specific, low-speed, and used only on private property, so it should not count as a "vehicle" for § 10851 | The device qualified as a “vehicle”: “may” focuses on capability/potential use on a highway; statutory exceptions are limited and other Vehicle Code definitions include similar devices |
| Sufficiency of evidence for unlawful driving (§ 10851—drives) | Evidence showed unauthorized ignition and testimony the device was driven around for 10–15 minutes; that supports unauthorized operation/joyriding theory | Defendant admitted only starting the engine and denied driving; confined/private operation should not support "driving" conviction | Substantial evidence supports conviction under the driving theory (unauthorized operation need not leave the premises; unauthorized use itself is proscribed) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for unlawful taking (§ 10851—takes) | Possession of recently taken vehicle alone and surrounding facts support inference of intent to appropriate; asportation need not be successful or long | The device never left the premises and was returned near its original spot, so no taking occurred | Substantial evidence supports a taking theory: jury could infer intent to permanently deprive from possession, conduct, and defendant’s denials; returning property or failure to leave does not negate intent |
| Challenge to strike-prior finding and related record adequacy | People introduced a certified exhibit packet at the bifurcated hearing; trial court could review it to find the prior qualified as a strike | Prior federal conviction does not conclusively show the required underlying conduct for a California strike | Issue forfeited for inadequate record on appeal: appellant failed to include exhibit packet (exhibit 5) that would show factual basis; absent it, presumption favors trial court’s finding |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Philpot, 122 Cal.App.4th 893 (discusses § 670 definition of "vehicle")
- People v. Garza, 35 Cal.4th 866 (explains § 10851 covers both theft/taking and unauthorized driving/joyriding)
- People v. Penunuri, 5 Cal.5th 126 (standard of review for sufficiency: substantial evidence test)
- People v. Woodell, 17 Cal.4th 448 (foreign conviction qualifies as a strike only if conduct matches California offense; trial may consider full record of foreign conviction)
- People v. Green, 34 Cal.App.4th 165 (possession of recently taken vehicle plus false explanation permits inference of guilt for § 10851)
- People v. Gray, 58 Cal.4th 901 (same-word presumption in statutory scheme; interpret repeated terms consistently)
- People v. Van Orden, 9 Cal.App.5th 1285 (discusses joyriding/unlawful driving precedent under § 10851)
- People v. Lara, 6 Cal.5th 1128 (jury must find vehicle value threshold for felony under § 10851; court found forfeiture here and uncontradicted value evidence)