Santa Clarita Shoplifting from Macy’s, DA Diversion

Our client, age 44, was visiting a friend in Los Angeles.  Our client was Russian and lived in Chicago.  He went into the Santa Clarita Macy’s off McBean Parkway and tried to walk out with a colorful children’s jacket worth $44 and a Champion sweatshirt for himself with a price of $40.  He was stopped as he walked out the front door of the store.

Our client, who spoke no English, apparently understood why the loss prevention officers were escorting him back into the store and was described by loss prevention as cooperative.  According to the police report, one of the loss prevention officers understood Russian and acted as a translator.  The translator explained that our client told him he received an important business call on his cell phone and walked out of the store to get better cell phone reception while forgetting that he was holding the sweatshirt and the jacket.

Our client explained that he had never stolen before and wished to pay for the items.

Loss prevention officers then presented our client with a demand for payment of $425, which our client paid, believing this was necessary to allow him to walk away with no problems.

To his surprise, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputies from the Santa Clarita station came to the store and cited him out on a violation of California Penal Code § 484(a), having him sign a promise to appear about two months later at the Santa Clarita courthouse.

He then left California and returned to Chicago.  He showed his ticket to an English-speaking friend, who called Greg Hill & Associates.  The friend then called Greg Hill & Associates and explained what had happened.

The friend asked many questions about what would happen to her friend, our client, and Greg answered the questions, one by one.  Greg then explained what DA diversion and judicial diversion was and recommended that the client take an online theft prevention course, if he could find one that was offered in Russian.  Greg also explained the immigration consequences of a conviction for misdemeanor petty theft, a crime of moral turpitude.

The friend then thanked Greg for the free consultation and said she would discuss retaining us with the client.

A few days later, the friend called Greg Hill & Associates again and retained us for the client.  The client had completed the National Association of Shoplifting Prevention online theft prevention class.  The friend emailed us his proof of completion of this program, as well as his receipt for paying the $425 loss prevention demand.

Greg then went to the arraignment for the client, while the client remained in Chicago.  Greg looked over the police report and then discussed the case facts with the young district attorney assigned to the courtroom.

The prosecutor was impressed that our client had completed the online theft prevention class and agreed to offer “DA Diversion” for our client.  The offer included the following terms: the client would have to enter a “no contest” to a violation of Penal Code § 484 and would thereafter have twelve months to complete a twelve-hour theft prevention class, perform 24 hours of community service and stay away from the Macy’s on McBean Parkway.

Greg responded that due to the client’s immigration concerns, it would be better if your client did not have to enter a “no contest” plea because it would be regarded by an immigration court as a conviction.  The DA said she understood and removed this requirement.

Greg also asked her to regard the client’s completion of the National Association of Shoplifting Prevention class as satisfying the twelve-hour theft prevention class requirement, particularly since the client did so prior to the arraignment.  The DA also agreed to this.

The judge then called the case and the DA and Greg explained the terms of DA diversion that had been agreed upon.

The judge then required the client to come to court to accept the terms in person.  Greg asked the judge to waive this requirement because the client lived in Chicago.  The judge agreed.

The case was then set for a further hearing in six months to monitor the client’s progress on community service.

Greg then emailed the client and his English-speaking friend, explaining the agreement worked out for him for DA diversion and how he would be able to “earn a dismissal” in one year if he performed 24 hours of community service, which Greg explained how to do and document for court purposes.

The client was greatly relieved at this resolution and happy that it would not pose an immigration problem for him.