gno.law

People v. Albaran CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D066751 · 2015-08-20 · Unpublished

Proceeding
appeal from a judgment
Trial court
Superior Court of Imperial County · No. JCF33247
Trial judge
Jeffrey B. Jones
Outcome
modified — Affirmed as modified.
Area
delinquency
Panel
Alex C. McDonald (author), Judith L. Haller, Joan K. Irion

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:10Z · confidence high

The trial court sentenced the defendant to consecutive terms for burglary and receiving stolen property. The Court of Appeal modified the judgment to stay the sentence for receiving stolen property pursuant to Penal Code section 654, as conceded by the Attorney General.

Ruling reviewedStandardThe courtThe model
Imposition of consecutive sentences for burglary and receiving stolen property
“The Attorney General properly concedes Albaran's conviction for burglary (count 2) and receiving stolen property (count 1) were part of an indivisible course of criminal conduct, and that the lesser eight-month sentence imposed on count 1 should have been stayed.”
unclearerroragree with court
agree with court

Authorities

  • relied: People v. Rodriguez (2009) 47 Cal.4th 501 — Where a defendant has been convicted of two crimes arising from the same act, the execution of the sentence imposed on one of the crimes must be stayed.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the well-established rule from People v. Rodriguez regarding Penal Code section 654 to the conceded facts. The court properly modified the judgment to stay the subordinate sentence, resolving the issue without unnecessary procedural complexity.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence low

The Imperial County Superior Court sentenced David Albaran to four years for burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and a consecutive eight months for receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)), for a total of four years eight months. On appeal, the Attorney General conceded the two counts arose from an indivisible course of conduct, and the Court of Appeal modified the judgment to stay the eight-month term on count 1 under section 654, affirming as modified.

Ruling reviewedStandardThe courtThe model
Imposition of a consecutive, unstayed eight-month sentence for receiving stolen property (count 1) in addition to the four-year burglary sentence (count 2), rather than staying the count 1 sentence under Penal Code section 654.
“The Attorney General properly concedes Albaran's conviction for burglary (count 2) and receiving stolen property (count 1) were part of an indivisible course of criminal conduct, and that the lesser eight-month sentence imposed on count 1 should have been stayed.”
unclearerror (law misapplied)agree with court
Section 654 bars multiple punishment for an indivisible course of conduct with a single objective, and People v. Rodriguez (2009) 47 Cal.4th 501 correctly states that the sentence on one of the two crimes must be stayed. The facts recited show Albaran burglarized the home and was found hours later with the homeowner's property; receiving/possessing the fruits of the same burglary is part of the same course of conduct, so staying the lesser term is the correct remedy. The opinion does not state a standard of review and resolves the issue on the concession rather than independent analysis, and it does not expressly identify whether count 1 concerned the homeowner's property or the stolen car (Albaran was acquitted of the Veh. Code § 10851 count), but the facts as stated support the result.

Authorities

  • relied: People v. Rodriguez (2009) 47 Cal.4th 501 — Under Penal Code section 654, where a defendant is convicted of two crimes arising from the same act or indivisible course of conduct, the execution of the sentence on one crime must be stayed.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court reached the correct result by applying section 654 and Rodriguez to an uncontested concession, and it properly selected the lesser term to stay and directed correction of the abstract of judgment. It is thin, however: it states no standard of review, performs no independent analysis of whether the receiving count shared the burglary's objective, and does not clarify which stolen property underlay count 1.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 8/20/15 P. v. Albaran CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D066751

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. JCF33247)

DAVID ALBARAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Jeffrey B.

Jones, Judge. Affirmed as modified.

Jared G. Coleman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Barry Carlton and Minh U. Le, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. David Albaran appeals a judgment convicting him of receiving stolen property (Penal Code § 496, subd. (a)1; count 1) and burglary (§ 459; count 2). The court sentenced Albaran to four years eight months in prison: four years for burglary and eight months consecutive for receiving stolen property. Albaran contends, and the Attorney General concedes, that his sentence for receiving stolen property should be stayed pursuant to section 654. We modify the judgment to stay the sentence imposed for receiving stolen property.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDRUAL BACKGROUND

Albaran and another man burglarized a home in Salton City, California. Husband and wife neighbors witnessed Albaran and his companion drive a car onto the home's front yard and Albaran carrying items from the home to the car's trunk. The husband went outside and yelled the license plate number to his wife, who was on the phone with police dispatch. After the husband yelled to the burglars, Albaran jumped into the passenger seat and the car sped away. When police arrived at the scene they found a broken bedroom window and the home ransacked.

The officers checked the car's registration and learned the car had been stolen shortly before the burglary. Police found Albaran, his companion and the car a few hours later while investigating a cell phone theft. Officers arrested the two men. At trial, the husband neighbor identified Albaran as the man he saw loading property into the stolen car and the homeowner identified the property found in the car as hers.

1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted. 2 A jury convicted Albaran of receiving stolen property and burglary, and acquitted him of a third charge of unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). The court sentenced Albaran to consecutive sentences of four years for burglary and eight months for receiving stolen property.

DISCUSSION

Section 654 provides that an act or omission may not be punished under more than one provision of law. Where a defendant has been convicted of two crimes arising from the same act, the execution of the sentence imposed on one of the crimes must be stayed.

(People v. Rodriguez (2009) 47 Cal.4th 501, 507.) The Attorney General properly concedes Albaran's conviction for burglary (count 2) and receiving stolen property (count 1) were part of an indivisible course of criminal conduct, and that the lesser eight-month sentence imposed on count 1 should have been stayed.2 We modify the sentence to stay the sentence imposed on count 1 pursuant to Penal Code section 654.

2 Albaran's opening brief sought a stay on the sentence imposed on count 2. His reply brief, however, recognizes the sentence on count 1, receiving stolen property, should be stayed as subordinate to the sentence imposed on the burglary conviction (count 2). 3 DISPOSITION The judgment is modified to stay the sentence on count 1 and is otherwise affirmed. The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment accordingly and to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

MCDONALD, J.

WE CONCUR:

HALLER, Acting P. J.

IRION, J.

Cites, in this corpus