People v. Griffin CA3, C091264

In January 2014 police found Jennifer Griffin in the driver’s seat of a car reported stolen; the ignition was tampered with, the radio stripped, and drugs and clothing were in the vehicle. Griffin told officers her boyfriend had the car and she later admitted she suspected it was stolen.
Griffin pleaded guilty on October 15, 2014 to unlawful driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code § 10851) and a factual basis for a felony plea was found in December 2014; other counts were dismissed.
Griffin received probation; after multiple probation violations and long delay, she admitted a violation in December 2019 and the court imposed the upper term of three years in county prison on the § 10851 conviction.
Griffin appealed, arguing that after Proposition 47 (effective November 5, 2014) the factual basis for her pre‑Prop 47 guilty plea could not support a felony because the probation report did not show the vehicle’s value exceeded $950.
The core legal question was whether the plea’s factual basis supported a felony conviction either because the vehicle’s value exceeded $950 (theft theory) or because Griffin committed posttheft driving (a non‑theft theory that can sustain a wobbler felony).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the plea’s factual basis supports a felony under § 10851 after Prop 47	People: factual basis shows posttheft driving (or theft over $950), so a felony is supportable	Griffin: probation report lacks vehicle value and facts do not show a substantial break between theft and driving, so felony is unauthorized	Court: no evidence vehicle value > $950, but facts (her admissions, different city, missing companion, stripped radio, travel to a third city) support posttheft driving; felony permissible as a wobbler
Allocation of burden/standard when plea was before but sentencing after Prop 47	People: when sentencing after Prop 47, People must prove facts supporting felony theory	Griffin: earlier factual‑basis finding should bar relitigation of felony elements	Court: because sentencing occurred after Prop 47, People bore burden to prove felony theory; court reviewed sufficiency of evidence using usual standards and found it adequate for posttheft driving

People v. Page, 3 Cal.5th 1175 (2017) (distinguishes theft‑based §10851 from posttheft driving and explains Prop 47 consequences)
People v. Bullard, 9 Cal.5th 94 (2020) (allocates burden of proof for felony/misdemeanor determination when sentencing occurs after Prop 47)
People v. Garza, 35 Cal.4th 866 (2005) (§10851 can constitute a theft offense depending on intent)
People v. Strong, 30 Cal.App.4th 366 (1994) (describes the "substantial break" test for posttheft driving)
People v. Gallardo, 4 Cal.5th 120 (2017) (guilty plea admissions must establish elements relied on to increase sentence)
People v. Banuelos, 130 Cal.App.4th 601 (2005) (a guilty plea to a statute covering alternative conduct does not by itself prove which alternative was committed)
People v. Park, 56 Cal.4th 783 (2013) (discusses sentencing discretion for wobblers)

Disposition: Judgment affirmed.