Joyriding, Identity Theft Case from 1987, Torrance Dismissal

In 1987, our client was just 25 years old.  He went into Torrance Nissan and purchased a car using a false financial statement purporting to be someone else and that he earned considerably more than was true.  

He then drove the car south, first to San Diego and then into Mexico.  He kept going south, all the way to Mexico City, where he parked the car in a secured parking garage.  He then mailed the keys back to Torrance Nissan, with instructions on where the car could be located and retrieved.

Our client then purchased a one-way ticket to London and returned home.  When the dealership received the client’s letter and the keys, it then retrieved the car, returned it to Torrance, and later sold it.

Thirty years later, he had a son graduating from a college in Southern California and wanted to attend the graduation.  He spoke to a few attorneys about whether there might be a problem coming to the United States and received various answers that he did not really trust, but were consistent in advising him that he could be arrested for grand theft auto or identity theft.

He then called Greg Hill & Associates and explained his situation.  Greg went to the Torrance Courthouse and discovered that a case against the client had been indeed filed in 1987 for: 1) making a false financial statement, a felony under California Penal Code § 532a(1); 2) grand theft auto, a felony under Penal Code § 487(3) (this has since been renumbered); and 3) unlawful taking of a vehicle without the owner’s consent, a felony and a violation of Vehicle Code § 10851(a).

Greg explained to the client that there was a bench warrant with $2,500 bail set and issued in 1987 when the client did not appear in the Torrance Courthouse for his arraignment.  Greg explained that such a warrant does not expire with time and that if our client attempted to enter the United States, for example through LAX, he would be arrested and brought to the Torrance Courthouse to be arraigned on the complaint.  Moreover, his bail would probably be re-set rather high because he could leave the country if released, as he had already demonstrated.

Greg then explained that what he could request at the Torrance Courthouse was that a judge recall the warrant so that the client could enter the United States without being arrested and  taken into custody.

Greg was confident that if the client did appear, the bench warrant would be recalled and the case could be recalled for a misdemeanor with just probation, allowing the client to return to England while being obligated to perform some community service, pay restitution to Torrance Nissan for their expenses in recovering the car from Mexico City and any diminution in value on the sale of the car later and perhaps take an online theft prevention course.

First, however, Greg attempted to have the judge agree to our client’s appearance under Penal Code § 977(b) through counsel only so that he would not have to personally appear in court.  Greg explained that he had been successful in having judges agree to this, but our client’s case was certainly different and the judge in Torrance handling felony arraignments was quite cautious and conservative, so he may not allow this.

Nonetheless, Greg prepared a proper Penal Code § 977(b) consent and waiver of personal appearance for our client, which our client signed and had notarized in England.  Greg then presented this to the judge, who denied the request because the waiver was not done orally in court previously (which is the legal standard for this, but some judges waived this).

The client therefore did appear, flying out from London, and was indeed taken into custody at LAX.  He then posted bail and appeared in the Torrance Courthouse.  The judge recalled the bench warrant and, as luck would have it, the prosecutor refused to simply resolve the case.  Instead, she agreed only to set the case for a preliminary hearing.  She did this because she found out that, coincidentally, the Torrance Nissan employee who sold our client the car was still working at Torrance Nissan (30 years later!) and the police officer who wrote the police report was also still working for the Torrance Police Department.

The preliminary hearing was then set for twelve days later and our client returned to England.

On the day of the preliminary hearing, however, our client failed to appear.  He explained to Greg that he could not get permission from England to travel back to the United States.

So, a bench warrant was issued again, this time with bail set at $100,000.  Greg believed he would never hear from the client again.

Seven years later, our client contacted Greg Hill again, stating he again wanted to try to resolve the case and have the bench warrant recalled.

Greg then checked with the prosecutor assigned to the case and discovered that Torrance Nissan had gone out of business (probably as a result of COVID-19) and the police officer who was previously available had passed away.

The District Attorney therefore agreed to dismiss the case.

About a month later, the judge recalled the bench warrant and upon the People’s motion to dismiss, dismissed the case.

We present this remarkable summary as an example of how evidence can remain available over time and it can also be lost if one waits long enough.