Carter

Thomas C. Carter appeals his conviction of seven counts of unlawful subleasing of a motor vehicle, contending: (1) the statutes proscribing his conduct violate equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 7 of the California Constitution; and (2) his conduct is not proscribed by the statute. We affirm.

At trial, the parties stipulated to the relevant facts. In January 1989, Carter was a part owner of U.S. Financial Company, a company that solicited individuals with negative equity in cars purchased under an installment contract or subject to a lease. The original purchaser or lessee signed an “Exclusive Agent Agreement” with U.S. Financial which gave the company 30 days to find a sublessee. U.S. Financial targeted individuals without sufficient credit to qualify for credit purchases elsewhere.

Once a sublessee was found, U.S. Financial would provide an agreement for both parties to sign. The agreement, entitled “Motor Vehicle Lease,” *778 purported to bind the two parties, and the sublessee agreed to make the lessee’s monthly payments. If the payments were not made, U.S. Financial promised to…

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.

*782 One 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…

Thomas C. Carter appeals his conviction of seven counts of unlawful subleasing of a motor vehicle, contending: (1) the statutes proscribing his conduct violate equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 7 of the California Constitution; and (2) his conduct is not proscribed by the statute. We affirm.

At trial, the parties stipulated to the relevant facts. In January 1989, Carter was a part owner of U.S. Financial Company, a company that solicited individuals with negative equity in cars purchased under an installment contract or subject to a lease. The original purchaser or lessee signed an "Exclusive Agent Agreement" with U.S. Financial which gave the company 30 days to find a sublessee. U.S. Financial targeted individuals without sufficient credit to qualify for credit purchases elsewhere.

Once a sublessee was found, U.S. Financial would provide an agreement for both parties to sign. The agreement, entitled "Motor Vehicle Lease," purported to bind the two parties, and the sublessee agreed to make the lessee's monthly payments. If the payments were not made, U.S. Financial promised to…