Court Opinion

ID: 9745016
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:28:33.456246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:54.731759
License: Public Domain

CROSBY, J., Dissenting.
No doubt the Legislature had scam artists like Carter in mind when it passed Penal Code section 571. But I agree with him. He did not violate the statute.
*782One cannot violate subdivision (a) of Penal Code section 571 without transferring or assigning—or purporting to transfer or assign—automobile leases, sales contracts, or security agreements. (Pen. Code, §571, subd. (a)(3).) Carter did none of that. And while his clients did engage in such transfers, they did not violate the law because they were parties to the leases and specifically exempt from the reach of the statute under Penal Code section 571, subdivision (a)(2).
Subdivision (b) of Penal Code section 571 can only be violated by assisting a violator of subdivision (a). No one violated subdivision (a) of section 571 of the Penal Code in this case. Consequently, there was no violation of subdivision (b).
The Legislature should quickly correct this ineptly drafted statute to corral strays like Carter, but it is not our function to keep them penned up until that is done. The judgment should be reversed.
A petition for a rehearing was denied December 12, 1994, and appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied March 16, 1995.