People v.

Lopez
Rule:

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.

Facts:

At gunpoint, defendant Daniel Sapien Lopez ordered the victim, who was sitting in
his van, to get out of the van. The victim complied, but before Lopez could leave with
the van, the victim retuned to the van. Lopez fled from the van and ran away on foot.
However, Lopez left behind his backpack, which contained identification. Lopez was
later arrested. After a bench trial in California state court, Lopez was found guilty of
multiple felony offenses, including carjacking under Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a). On
Lopez's appeal, the court of appeals affirmed, holding that the actual movement of the
motor vehicle was not required to complete the offense of carjacking. On appeal to
the state supreme court, Lopez asserted that there was insufficient evidence of a
completed carjacking because the vehicle had not been moved.

Issue:

Was Lopez guilty of carjacking, notwithstanding the fact that he did not gain
possession of the victim's van and asport or carry it away?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The state supreme court reversed the appellate court's judgment as to Lopez's and
remanded the case to that court for further proceedings. The court analogized the
"felonious taking" in § 215 to the same language in Cal. Penal Code § 211, the statute
proscribing robbery and noted that the "felonious taking" in the robbery statute
required asportation or carrying away of the loot. The carjacking statute was based on
the robbery statute but was created to address perceived difficulties with obtaining
convictions under the robbery statute. The court held the meaning of "felonious
taking" in the robbery statute applied to the carjacking statute. Therefore, as the
victim's van was not moved or carried away, Lopez's conduct was punishable only as
attempted carjacking.