In re F.P. CA1/3

DISCUSSION

The parties agree the juvenile court erred by sustaining the juvenile wardship petition with respect to both offenses. We likewise agree. The common law rule is that a defendant “may not be convicted of stealing and receiving the same property.” (People v. Jaramillo (1976) 16 Cal.3d 752, 757 (Jaramillo); see also People v. Allen (1999)

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 Minor had previously been declared a ward of the court on July 14, 2011, after he admitted to tampering with a vehicle in violation of the Vehicle Code.

2 Cal.4th 846, 853 (Allen); People v. Stephens (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 575, 586 (Stephens).) This court has found the same principle to be applicable in juvenile adjudications. (In re Kali D. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 381, 384-385, disapproved on another ground in Allen, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 859-860.) The Legislature codified this rule when amending section 496, subdivision (a), to add the following language: “[N]o person may be convicted both [of receiving stolen property] and of the theft of the same property.” 3 An exception to this rule exists at common law known as the “complete divorcement” exception. (People…