P. v. Hernandez CA4/1
Vidana (2016) 1 Cal.5th 632 (Vidana). In Vidana, our Supreme Court held that convictions for both grand theft by larceny (§ 484, subd. (a)) and embezzlement (§ 503) based on the same course of conduct could not stand under section 954. (Id. at pp. 635, 649–651.) The court ruled that “section 954 does not authorize convictions for different statements of the same offense.” (Id. at p. 651.) The Attorney General here concedes that “the con
Comments on P. v. Hernandez CA4/1