People v. Lopez
8 Cal. App. 5th 1230
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On April 7, 2015, Arleen Stacy Lopez entered and drove off in a Toyota Highlander while victim Aurora Prado (65) was moving shopping carts; Prado held the door handle and tried to stop the vehicle as Lopez backed up and sped away.
- Surveillance video captured the incident (with low frame rate gaps); Prado testified she was pushed and that Lopez reversed quickly so tires made noise and Prado was pulled until she lost her grip.
- Lopez was found in the Highlander two days later; she admitted to taking the vehicle to investigators and was charged with carjacking (Pen. Code § 215(a)).
- A jury convicted Lopez of carjacking; she was sentenced to three years. She appealed and filed a habeas petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and denied the habeas petition, holding the evidence supported a finding of force, rejecting instruction and prosecutorial-misconduct claims, and finding no cumulative prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Lopez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence of "force" for carjacking | Evidence (victim testimony + video + admission) shows Lopez drove while Prado clung to vehicle, overcoming resistance — constitutes force | Force was no more than needed to move the car (mere seizing), no weapon, no visible push on video, so insufficient for carjacking | Affirmed: sufficient evidence. Driving away while victim physically resists is force under §215; jury could credit Prado and video evidence |
| Failure to instruct on lesser-related offenses (theft §487; Veh. Code §10851) | Court may refuse lesser-related instructions where not required; prosecution did not consent to giving them | Trial court erred by not giving instructions and prosecution’s silence implied consent | Held: no error. Neither offense is lesser-included; prosecution’s silence did not amount to consent and court properly declined instructions |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (reserving key argument for rebuttal) and ineffective assistance for failing to object | Rebuttal focus on force was proper; evidence supported the argument | Prosecutor "sandbagged" by reserving force argument to rebuttal; counsel ineffective for not objecting | Forfeited on appeal (no trial objection); even if deficient, no prejudice — overwhelming evidence; habeas denied |
| Cumulative prejudice from asserted errors | N/A | Combined errors require reversal | No cumulative prejudice; errors not established |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Snow, 30 Cal.4th 43 (substantial-evidence standard on appeal)
- People v. Lopez, 31 Cal.4th 1051 (carjacking modeled on robbery; legislative intent)
- People v. Hill, 23 Cal.4th 853 (carjacking can occur even if victim unaware; heightened danger)
- People v. Morales, 49 Cal.App.3d 134 (force must overcome resistance; limiting rule for robbery)
- People v. Burns, 172 Cal.App.4th 1251 (victim resistance converts theft to robbery regardless of force magnitude)
- People v. Anderson, 51 Cal.4th 989 (additional-force analysis in vehicular movements)
- People v. Birks, 19 Cal.4th 108 (lesser-related instruction principles)
- People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (when to give lesser-included offense instructions)
- People v. Cunningham, 25 Cal.4th 926 (forfeiture of prosecutorial-misconduct claims without trial objection)