Sacramento Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Though the terms theft and burglary are sometimes used interchangeably in everyday conversation, they are distinct crimes as defined by the California Penal Code. Both are serious crimes that come with the potential for severe penalties.

California Penal Code section 484 defines theft as a taking of property. Theft crimes are divided into two categories: petty theft and grand theft.

• Petty theft is charged when the value of the property is $400 or less. Petty thefts can be charged as infractions or misdemeanors depending on the value of the property and the defendant's prior criminal record. Penalties for a conviction of petty theft include fines up to $1000, a jail sentence of up to six month, restitution, counseling, work project, and/or probation.
• Grand theft is charged when the value of the property is greater than $400. Grand thefts can be charged as either misdemeanors or felonies depending on the defendant's prior criminal record and the circumstances of the crime. Penalties for grand theft include substantial fines, jail time up to one year or prison time of longer duration, restitution, counseling, work project, and/or probation.

California Penal Code section 459 defines burglary as entering a building with the intention to commit a theft, or any felony. Burglaries are divided into two categories: first degree and second degree.

• First degree burglary is charged when someone enters an "inhabited" building, such as a house, apartment, or trailer. Conviction of first degree burglary carries a prison term of two, four, or six years.
• Second degree burglary is charged in all other instances, like when the "structure" is a store, warehouse, or vehicle. Second degree burglaries are wobblers, which means that the district attorney's office can charge them as either misdemeanors or felonies. Conviction of second degree misdemeanor burglary can result in a jail term of less than a year. Conviction of second degree felony burglary has the potential of up to three years in prison.

The key thing that distinguishes theft from burglary is that theft means that property was actually taken. Burglary, on the other, is concerned with entering a building with the intent to commit another crime. That means that burglary can be charged when someone goes into a house and steals money or actual property. It can also be charged when someone goes into a house and commits a sexual assault or other felony. And importantly, it can also be charged when no other crime is committed, as long as the defendant is believed to have had the intention to commit a theft or other felonious act. That means that a person could get the idea to steal something, enter a house, leave empty-handed after having second thoughts, and still be charged with burglary.

Obviously, the complicated nature of the Penal Codes pertaining to theft and burglary mean that representation by an experienced criminal defense lawyer is essential if you or someone you know is facing charges. Call the Law Office of Nancy King at (916) 442-1200 if you have questions about theft or burglary, or any other topics covered in our blog.

The tortured tale of time credits at the Sacramento County jail seems to finally have come to a close. Judge Loren McMaster on Friday ruled against the request by the Sacramento Sheriff's Deputies Association to block implementation at the jail of a new state law increasing the amount of early release time inmates could earn for good behavior.

The ruling comes after a hearing that saw the sheriff's deputies association on one side arguing against the new law, and the Sacramento district attorney's office, Sacramento public defender's office, and the state attorney general's office all on the other side arguing for it.

Keep in mind that before this new law went into effect January 25, state prison and county jail inmates in California were already able to earn early release if they met good behavior requirements. All the new law did was increase the amount of credit that could be earned. (See our previous posts for full explanations of this.) The new law was seen as necessary because of the twin problems of budget constraints and overcrowding in jails and prisons.

Throughout this battle, the sheriff's deputies association has made two arguments: the new law was meant to increase time credits at state prisons only, not county jails; and the increased number of prisoners obtaining early release would endanger the public.

In the end, McMaster was not persuaded. County jail inmates will now get one day of credit toward early release for each day they serve with good behavior.

The actions by the deputies' union do raise questions, though, especially after the deputies were opposed in court by their law enforcement partners, the district attorney and the attorney general. It seems clear to us that the new law applies to county jails, not just state prisons. If the deputies want to return to the provisions of the old law, they are better served trying to get the legislature and governor to pass an amended law rather than circumventing the legislative process.

What was their motivation?

The new state law that increases the amount of time a jail sentence may be reduced for good behavior continues to be the subject of an ill-considered legal battle in Sacramento County. (For a review of the law's provisions, see our previous post.)

The superior court judge who last week issued an order blocking enforcement of the law yesterday reversed himself and said that the law must be implemented until county jail inmates are able to bring their legal concerns before the court. "While county jail inmates may not be indispensable parties in the technical sense," Judge Loren McMaster wrote, "they are real parties in interest since the resolution of this matter directly affects them and their status."

While we're pleased that McMaster has temporarily allowed the law to be implemented, we still disagree with his original ruling. The legislature clearly meant for the new law to merely amend a previous state law that already allowed state prison and county jail inmates to be released early for good behavior. All the new law did was increase the amount of credit that could be earned in an attempt to relieve prison and jail overcrowding.

Sadly, McMaster's rulings have only resulted in confusion and inequity. We know of at least one inmate who got caught in the middle of this wrangling and received no credit at all for good behavior, because he entered Sacramento County Jail just as McMaster issued his original injunction blocking the new law, and was released today, just as the injunction was lifted.

At least one issue has been clarified: The California Attorney General's Office has advised the Sacramento Sheriff's Department, which oversees the jail, that the new system of determining time credits should only apply to time served after January 25.

More on this issue as it develops.

"More inmates to be released early as Sacramento judge rescinds earlier order," Sacramento Bee, February 17, 2010

Confusion reigns at the Sacramento County Jail after a Sacramento Superior Court judge blocked implementation of a new state law increasing the amount of time credit inmates at the county jail can get for good behavior.

Judge Loren McMaster issued the injunction on Wednesday in response to a lawsuit brought by the Sacramento County sheriff's deputies union, which claims that the California Community Corrections Performance Incentives Act of 2009 applies only to state prisons and not county jails.

The new law, enacted by the legislature and the governor to deal with overcrowding of California's prisons and jails, was meant merely to modify and expand a previous state law that allowed prisoners, both in the state prison system and county jails, to have their sentences reduced if they met certain good behavior criteria. Under the old law, prisoners were eligible for fifty percent credit, meaning a one day sentence reduction for every two days served. That meant someone sentenced to 60 days could be released after 40 days. The new law increased the opportunity for time credits to one day reduced sentence for each day served, giving a person with a 60-day sentence the chance to get out in 30 days.

The absurdity of this situation comes in many forms:

• The Sacramento Sheriff's Department, along with sheriff's departments in 20 other California counties, has taken the official position of implementing the law. As a result now you have the Sheriff's Department saying it intends to enforce the new law while the sheriff's deputies union fights to block it.
• After Judge McMaster issued the injunction on Wednesday, the Sheriff's Department declared that there would be NO GOOD TIME CREDIT GIVEN AT ALL until the matter is resolved, even though such credit had been granted for 34 years under previous law. So now you have people in custody who would have been granted one-for-two credit for good behavior under the old law, were expecting to get one-for-one credit under the new law, and now find that they get no credit at all.
• Complicating things even more, McMaster on Thursday issued a clarification that said that good time credit would continue to be awarded, but only for the portions of sentences served before January 25, the date the new law took effect.
• And finally, some Sacramento judges are apparently giving out sentences with calculations for credit for time served based on the old law.

The state legislature is apparently working to pass a law that would clarify who should receive credits, but given the shambles that is our legislature (what's happened to Abel Maldonado's nomination for lieutenant governor is a good example) we shouldn't expect quick action. The result is that this has taken away the incentives for good behavior for people serving time in county jail, and exacerbated an already serious problem of jail overcrowding.

What a mess.

As the California State Legislature wrestles with the possibility of paroling thousands of inmates from California prisons, a new study shows that in neighborhoods lacking a social network of long-time residents and active community organizations, crime tends to increase as the number of parolees rises. However, those neighborhoods with a strong social support system appear to do a much better job of bringing former prisoners back into society, and thus experience little if any increase in crime.

Because of the over $25 billion state budget deficit, the California Assembly and Senate are proposing cutting the state's prison population, which increased 73% between 1990 and 2006, three times faster than the California adult population. The Senate's plan is more sweeping than the Assembly's, but both would grant early parole to thousands of prisoners.

Coincidentally, University of California, Irvine, professor John Hipp has just published a paper in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology examining the impact of increases in parolees on the neighborhoods they move to after release from prison. His study, which looked at data for Sacramento neighborhoods between 2003 and 2006, showed that as parolees moved in, incidences of burglary, robbery, and assault often went up. When parolees with violent backgrounds moved in, murder rates went up as well.

What was significant though was Hipp's finding that this tendency toward increases in crime were moderated significantly in neighborhoods with established residents and community organizations that helped parolees reintegrate into society. A stronger social fabric seems to boost parolees' chances for success.

At a time when government and non-profit organizations are cutting services because of lack of funding, the legislature's plan to reduce prison population through increased paroles raises concerns for communities in light of Hipp's findings. Given that there will be continued pressure to reduce, or at least not increase, the state's prison population in coming years, communities need to find ways to strengthen programs that help former prisoners become contributing, law abiding citizens.

"Parolees' release leads to crime," UC Irvine, September 1, 2009
"California's Changing Prison Population," Public Policy Institute of California, August 2006