People v. Calistro
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of charges related to his involvement in receiving a stolen vehicle. The Court of Appeal found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by choosing which records to disclose and which not to disclose pursuant to defendant's Pitchess motion; although the court agreed that defendant should not have been convicted under both Vehicle Code section 10851(a) and section 666.5(a), the court concluded that reversal was not necessary because there was no jury finding to support a section 666.5(a) conviction; the court noted that the corrected abstract of judgment shall not include a conviction under section 666.5(a); defendant's nontheft conviction under Vehicle Code section 10851(a) did not bar a conviction for receiving the car as stolen property under section 496d(a) (count 1) or for receiving the stolen credit cards inside the car under section 496(a) (count 3); the jury could have convicted defendant on count 1—but was precluded from doing so by the erroneous instruction—and the conviction on count 3 may stand; and defendant may be punished for both the Vehicle Code section 10851(a) (count 2) and the section 496(a) (count 3) convictions. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. The court affirmed in all other respects.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.