People v. Lara
245 Cal. Rptr. 3d 426
| Cal. | 2019Background
- Lara was arrested driving a stolen Honda in August 2013; charged in Jan 2015 with Veh. Code §10851 (wobbler) and receiving stolen property (Pen. Code §496d).
- Jury was instructed only on the unlawful driving (posttheft driving) theory of §10851; prosecutor disavowed a theft theory; jury convicted on driving without permission and acquitted on receiving.
- Proposition 47 (effective Nov 5, 2014) added Penal Code §490.2, reclassifying many thefts of property ≤ $950 as misdemeanors and providing resentencing procedures under §1170.18 for persons "serving a sentence" on that date.
- On appeal Lara argued §10851 conviction must be reduced to a misdemeanor under §490.2 because vehicle-value was not proved; Court of Appeal held §490.2 inapplicable to §10851.
- Supreme Court granted review to decide (1) whether defendants not yet sentenced when Prop. 47 took effect get initial sentencing under §490.2 (or must use §1170.18 petitions), and (2) whether Lara’s conviction must be reduced or was supported as a felony posttheft driving.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Prop. 47’s ameliorative penalty (§490.2) applies directly at initial sentencing for crimes committed before but tried/sentenced after Nov 5, 2014 | Prop. 47 should apply at initial sentencing for nonfinal cases tried/sentenced after effective date | Lara: §490.2 applies so his offense is a misdemeanor (value not proved); need not rely on §1170.18 petition | Held: Amendment applies at initial sentencing for defendants not yet sentenced as of Nov 5, 2014 (Estrada rule); §1170.18 applies only to those already "serving a sentence" on that date |
| Whether §490.2 automatically converts all §10851 violations to misdemeanors | Government: §490.2 does not apply to nontheft (posttheft driving) forms of §10851; only theft-based §10851 falls under §490.2 | Lara: His conviction must be reduced because no vehicle value was proved | Held: §490.2 does not cover posttheft driving; evidence supported posttheft driving felony regardless of vehicle value |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support felony §10851 conviction (posttheft driving vs theft) | Government: Facts (6–7 day gap, circumstantial indicia) support a substantial break and posttheft driving felony | Lara: Insufficient evidence of felony/theft; value not proved | Held: Evidence sufficient to show substantial break → posttheft driving felony; value need not be proved for that theory |
| Instructional error: failure to specify posttheft driving vs theft | Government: Jury was instructed only on unlawful driving; prosecutor disavowed theft theory; error (if any) was harmless | Lara: Instruction was incomplete and could permit convicting on a theft theory without value proof | Held: Any omission harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given record and prosecutor’s statements; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (presumption that ameliorative statutes apply to nonfinal judgments)
- People v. DeHoyos, 4 Cal.5th 594 (Prop. 47’s §1170.18 supplies exclusive path for those serving sentences on effective date)
- People v. Page, 3 Cal.5th 1175 (Prop. 47 applies to §10851 when based on theft; distinguishes theft vs posttheft driving)
- People v. Garza, 35 Cal.4th 866 (distinguishes theft-based §10851 from posttheft driving and double‑conviction rules)
- People v. Kehoe, 33 Cal.2d 711 (defines "substantial break" between theft and later driving)
- People v. Nasalga, 12 Cal.4th 784 (application of Estrada framework)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless error standard beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (harmlessness analysis for omitted jury findings)