King

People v. King

Good Law
2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 458·2000 Daily Journal DAR 6161·81 Cal. App. 4th 472·96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 817·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4675
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 9, 2000E024979California2,938 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hollenhorst, J.

The sole issue we address in this appeal is whether the offense of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496) is necessarily included within the offense of owning and operating a chop shop (Veh. Code, § 10801) so as to bar simultaneous convictions on both offenses. We conclude that it is under the facts of this_case and accordingly reverse defendant’s convictions on the four counts of receiving stolen property. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

Facts and Procedural History

In January 1999, defendant lived in an apartment inside a bam rented to him by Gertrude Rowlands. The barn was divided up into thirds: The first area consisted of a living room, bedroom, bathroom and kitchen. The second area consisted of several 15-by-15-foot cubicles, equipped with various tools, such as socket wrenches, end wrenches, and other tools that could be used for repairs or taking things apart, and lights so that people could work at night. The third area consisted of an open space through which a car could be driven, back to front.

On January 6, 1999, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office, the Hemet Police Department and the California Highway Patrol participated in a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.