Court Opinion

ID: 9746189
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:07:41.596985+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:10.692794
License: Public Domain

WOODS (Fred), J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I dissent from the reversal of the grand theft count: grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)) is not a lesser included offense of robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.)
In People v. Rush (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 20, 25 [20 Cal.Rptr.2d 15], People v. Gamble (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 446 [27 Cal.Rptr.2d 451], and most recently in People v. Escobar (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 477 [53 Cal.Rptr.2d 9], my colleagues held grand theft auto is an included offense of robbery. Now they hold grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487) also is an included offense of robbery. How they reach this conclusion is not explained. Only citations to People v. Cole (1982) 31 Cal.3d 568, 582 [183 Cal.Rptr. 350, 645 P.2d 1182], People v. Irvin (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 180 [281 Cal.Rptr. 195], and People v. Bernal (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1455 [27 Cal.Rptr.2d 839] are provided as clues. Neither Irvin nor Bernal involved grand theft, which leaves Cole. As to Cole, it “relies on an attorney general concession, engages in no analysis, and cites only one case which does not support its conclusion.” (People v. Rush, supra, 16 Cal.App.4th at p. 36 (dis. opn. of Woods (Fred), J.), fn. omitted.)
The majority position defies rational articulation. Until Rush, Gamble, and Irvin are disapproved by our California Supreme Court there will be “chaos in the trial courts and confusion in the appellate courts . . . .” (People v. Rush, supra, 16 Cal.App.4th at p. 37 (dis. opn. of Woods (Fred), J.); see People v. Miranda (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1464 [26 Cal.Rptr.2d 610].)
The petitions of both respondent and appellants for review by the Supreme Court were denied August 21, 1996. Chin, J., and Brown, J., were of the opinion that the petition of respondent should be granted.