## Facts

- Frankie Llamas and Irma Llamas were married; Irma was the registered owner of a 1994 gray Nissan acquired during the marriage and treated as community property.
- After a marital dispute in late January 1995, Frankie took the Nissan without Irma’s permission; Irma reported the vehicle as stolen.
- On February 1, 1995, Officer Michael Walden responded to a report of a possible auto theft in progress and approached the Nissan parked on a street in Chula Vista.
- Walden observed Llamas exit the car, briefly open and close the hood, then walk toward Walden.
- When ordered to stop and raise his hands, Llamas initially kept his hands in his pockets, then removed them and made a tossing motion; Walden heard metal “jangling.”
- Police recovered vehicle keys and, near the vehicle and Llamas, a firearm and controlled substances; these items supported charges involving drug and firearm possession.
- A jury convicted Llamas of: possession of a controlled substance while armed; vehicle taking; receiving stolen property; felon in possession of a firearm; and possession of a controlled substance.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported a Vehicle Code § 10851 conviction where the vehicle was community property and was taken from a spouse without consent.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported convictions for receiving stolen property and felon in possession of a firearm.
3. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by excluding a defense witness, denying a motion to substitute appointed counsel, and responding to a jury question during deliberations.
4. Whether prosecutorial misconduct or ineffective assistance of counsel required reversal or habeas relief.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment against Llamas.
- The court held substantial evidence supported the Vehicle Code § 10851 vehicle-taking conviction despite the vehicle’s community property status.
- The court held substantial evidence supported the receiving stolen property and felon-in-possession convictions, including proof of knowledge and constructive possession.
- The court found no reversible error in the challenged trial rulings, including denial of the motion to substitute counsel, exclusion of a defense witness, and the response to the jury’s question.
- The court rejected claims of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal and denied habeas relief.

## Legal Principles

- A spouse may be convicted under Vehicle Code § 10851 for taking a community-property vehicle from the other spouse without consent if the evidence shows intent to deprive the other spouse of possession, temporarily or permanently.
- For § 10851, the relevant inquiry is lack of consent and intent to deprive the “owner” of possession; community property status does not bar treating a spouse with a possessory interest as an owner for this purpose.
- Receiving stolen property may be proved by evidence that the defendant possessed or controlled reported-stolen property and knew of its stolen character; knowledge may be inferred from surrounding circumstances.
- Felon-in-possession may be established through constructive possession inferred from conduct and proximity, including evidence suggesting the defendant discarded the firearm.
- Denial of a motion to substitute appointed counsel is reviewed for abuse of discretion; substitution requires a showing of inadequate representation or an irreconcilable conflict.
- Claims of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance require a showing of prejudicial error; ineffective assistance additionally requires deficient performance and prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court upheld convictions arising from Llamas’s taking of his spouse’s vehicle and related firearm and drug evidence, concluding that community property does not immunize a spouse from Vehicle Code § 10851 liability when the vehicle is taken without consent with intent to deprive the other spouse of possession, and finding no reversible trial error or basis for collateral relief.


People v. Llamas, 51 Cal. App. 4th 1729 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)