Fullerton Lawyer for the Defense of Grand Theft
If you live in the City of Fullerton, it helps to know the difference between petty theft and grand theft and why you may need the services of a reputable Orange County criminal defense attorney like Lauren K. Johnson.
In California, petty theft is defined as the unlawful taking of another's property valued at less than $950, while grand theft can be charged if the property is valued above $950. Sometimes it can be this straightforward, or at other times much more complex.
For example, if money, labor, personal property or land is taken over a twelve month period, grand theft can be charged if the total amount is more than $950. Another consideration for an experienced Fullerton grand theft defense attorney to look at is if the theft involved a firearm, an automobile or certain animals; such as horses, sheep or pigs. Sometimes in the case of “grand theft firearm” or “grand theft auto” the value of the item may be irrelevant, and is automatically charged as grand theft. This could also apply to certain foods, farm crops, aqua-cultural products or real estate that has been taken from another and converted into your personal property, such as taking water or oil from another person’s land.
In cases involving burglary, robbery, forgery or receiving stolen property, the charges may be filed as either theft or grand theft, depending on the circumstances of your case and your criminal history. However, Orange County grand theft lawyer Lauren K. Johnson will tell you that there are often a wide variety of defenses available to present on your behalf. These could include defenses such as having consent, or the belief that you owned the property taken. There could also be mitigating circumstances involved, such as returning the property taken.
There may also have been a situation where you were not aware that the property taken was actually theirs and not yours. For example, there might have been a car that was similar to one that you thought you had permission to take. However, in reality, that car was not actually yours. In this situation, there was a lack of criminal intent to permanently deprive the actual owner of their property. On another note, if the person taking the car had the true belief that they had the right to take what they know to be under their ownership. Another defense may have been that they had the permission of the owner to take their property. For example, if one party thought that they had the consent of the other to take their property, and had the full intentions of returning it later, then that would not be an instance of grand theft. This may be the case when someone had initially been given the permission of the owner of an expensive item to borrow it for an event. However, if the owner eventually says that the other person is guilty of grand theft, then their accusation would be false because they were given consent.
If you have any questions about grand theft, call the Johnson Criminal Law Group at (949) 622-5522. She has the knowledge and experience that get results.