Case Brief 8 (Lopez)

Comments   Facts

You have information that is not from the version of the case that I gave you. DO NOT use online versions of the case (or case briefs) to complete this assignment. It is to be completed based ONLY on the version of the case provided to you.

Provide the court's description of what happened and what the defendant was convicted of based on the case you were given.

Do not include any information about the appeal in this section.

Comments  Reasoning

The first two paragraphs are reasoning. However, the second paragraph needs to be presented using the exact same language and formatting used by the court.

The last paragraph is reasoning, but it's incomplete. You need the entire paragraph. Additionally, more reasoning is required. First, there's another sentence that discusses how California courts have dealt with robbery's taking element. Second, there's a paragraph that discusses judicial construction of the statute.

 Chiuying Perng

Missy Cunningham
ADJU3
CRN 22512
Case Brief 8
The People v.s. Daneil Sapien Lopez
Fact:
On July 1, 1999, Wa Vue Yang was seated inside his van in a parking lot
when defendant approached him and offered to sell him a watch. When Yang
replied that he had a watch, defendant pulled out a gun and shot at the ground. He
pointed the gun at Yang and ordered him out of his van. Yang complied, but left
his keys in the ignition. Defendant sat in the van and threw his backpack onto the
passenger seat. As Yang began to leave, he remembered that he had left some
checks inside the van. Deciding that defendant’s weapon was an air gun, Yang’s
fear subsided. He returned to the van to retrieve his checks. Defendant pointed his
gun at Yang and pulled the trigger twice, but the gun did not fire. Defendant fled
from the van and left his backpack, containing identification, in the van.
Defendant committed a series of other unrelated crimes. After a court trial,
the trial court found defendant guilty of multiple felony offenses, including
carjacking (§ 215, subd. (a)) for the criminal activity against Yang (count V).
Under the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), the
court imposed a lengthy term of imprisonment.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the carjacking conviction. It rejected
defendant’s claim that, because the vehicle had not been moved or the engine
started, there was insufficient evidence of a completed carjacking and he was guilty

only of attempted carjacking. Determining that carjacking and robbery are not
analogous crimes, the court held that actual movement of a motor vehicle is not
required to complete the offense of carjacking. We granted review to settle the
conflict between this case and People v. Vargas (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 456
(Vargas), which held that carjacking requires movement of the vehicle because
robbery is an analogous statute and it requires movement of the property taken.
Issue:
Does the felonious taking element of the crime of carjacking, like robbery, require asportation
or movement of the motor vehicle?
Holding: The felonious taking element of the crime of carjacking, like robbery, requires the
asportation or movement of the motor vehicle.
Reasoning:
Carjacking is defined as“the felonious taking of a motor vehicle in the possession of another,
from his or her person or immediate presence, or from the person or immediate presence of a
passenger of the motor vehicle, against his or her will and with the intent to either
permanently or temporarily deprive the person in possession of the motor vehicle of his or
her possession, accomplished by means of force or fear.” (§ 215, subd. (a), italics added.)
Penal code 211: Robbery is defined as "the felonious taking of personal property in the
possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will,
accomplished by means of force or fear"
The crime of carjacking requires the “felonious taking” of a motor vehicle. (Pen. Code §
215.) Similarly, the crime of robbery requires the “felonious taking” of personal property. (§
211.) California courts, following common law, have long held that the “taking” element of
robber