People v. Malamut

In People v. Malamut (1971) 16 Cal. App. 3d 237, the defendant was found driving a car two months after it had been stolen. The court held that he was properly convicted both for theft and for unlawful taking or driving under section 10851. It cited People v. Kehoe (1949) 33 Cal.2d 711, in which the Supreme Court had held that " 'in the absence of any evidence showing a substantial break between the defendant's taking and his use of the automobile,' " the defendant could not be convicted of both theft and unlawful taking or driving. (Id. at p. 242.) In the case before it, however, the court found evidence of such a substantial break, based, in part, on its conclusion that "the vehicle was not being driven in one continuous journey away from the locus of the theft." (Ibid.)