People v. Morales
245 Cal. Rptr. 3d 352
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2019Background
- Adrian Morales was found in unauthorized possession of a PACE Solano white van; he told officers a man named "Shawn" let him use it because Morales was homeless. He was charged with felony unlawful driving/taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code §10851) and other counts; three Nevada robbery-related prior convictions were alleged as strikes.
- PACE Solano employees testified Morales did not work for the company and was not authorized to use the van; the van had been missing and when recovered had damage and missing seats.
- The jury verdict form and conviction focused on unlawful driving (post-theft driving), not the taking/robbery/theft form of §10851.
- At a bench trial on priors (defendant waived jury for priors), the trial court found two of three Nevada prior strike allegations true; Morales was sentenced to 32 months (16 months doubled under strike law).
- Morales appealed raising: (1) Page requires §10851 always be treated as misdemeanor under Prop 47; (2) absurdity/equal protection arguments about treating theft as lesser than post-theft driving; (3) trial court failed to instruct on theft/aiding-and-abetting defenses; and (4) Sixth Amendment error in relying on ambiguous plea records for prior strikes (invoking Gallardo).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Morales) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether People v. Page bars felony punishment for all §10851 convictions | §10851 includes both theft and non-theft forms; Page distinguishes them so felony punishment can stand for non-theft forms | Page means any §10851 conduct is potentially a theft and thus eligible for misdemeanor treatment under Prop 47 | Court: Page does not preclude felony punishment for unlawful driving (post-theft) because Garza/Page distinguish theft (permanent deprivation) from post-theft driving |
| Whether treating theft (≤$950) as misdemeanor but post-theft driving as felony produces absurd results requiring statutory rewrite | Plain text of Penal Code §490.2 applies only to theft; no extreme absurdity shown to justify judicial re-writing | Morales: leads to absurd outcomes and perverse incentives to lie and claim theft | Court: No absurdity; post-theft driving can be more dangerous and Page forecloses perjury strategy; no basis for rewriting statute |
| Whether unequal punishment violates equal protection | Different §10851 forms are distinct offenses and not similarly situated; distinction rationally related to safety concerns | Morales: Punishing post-theft driving more harshly than stealing a low-value car violates equal protection | Court: Rejects equal protection claim — classes not similarly situated; analysis ends |
| Whether trial court violated due process by not instructing on theft or aiding-and-abetting | No sua sponte duty to instruct because defendant's defense was lack of intent to deprive; theft/aiding theories inconsistent with his defense and lacked substantial evidentiary support | Morales: He was deprived of a defense that could have reduced punishment | Court: No error — instructions on theft/aiding-and-abetting not required given defense theory and sparse evidence |
| Whether prior-strike true findings violated Sixth Amendment under Gallardo | People conceded ambiguity in prior Nevada plea records; Gallardo requires opportunity to show plea encompassed admission of elements | Morales: Trial court relied on ambiguous records; Gallardo requires reversal/remand | Court: Agrees with Morales as to priors; reverses true findings and remands for retrial/clarification per Gallardo |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Page, 3 Cal.5th 1175 (distinguishing theft and post-theft driving under Veh. Code §10851; Prop 47 analysis)
- People v. Garza, 35 Cal.4th 866 (recognizing separate theft and nontheft forms of §10851)
- People v. Gallardo, 4 Cal.5th 120 (Sixth Amendment limitations on judicial reliance on ambiguous plea records for prior enhancements; remand for clarification)
- People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (standard for sua sponte defense instructions)
Disposition: Affirmed as to the §10851 conviction and all substantive issues except priors; prior-strike findings reversed and remanded for new determination consistent with Gallardo.