Theft and robbery are legally distinct offenses in California, but they come up together in conversation because both involve taking property from someone else. The legal gap between them is significant. Robbery under PC 211 is a violent felony that carries state prison time and a strike under California's Three Strikes Law. Petty theft under PC 488 is a misdemeanor. The defense options, and how viable they are, depend entirely on which charge is actually filed and what the specific facts show.
We handle theft charges across the county as part of our broader criminal defense representation, from shoplifting cases in Ontario and Fontana to grand theft and robbery charges at San Bernardino Superior Court. Every case starts the same way: reviewing the specific elements the prosecution has to prove and finding where those elements are factually or legally vulnerable.
Understanding the Charge: Petty Theft, Grand Theft, and Robbery
Petty theft under PC 488 covers property valued at $950 or less. First offense: misdemeanor, up to six months in county jail. Grand theft under PC 487 applies above the $950 threshold and also covers specific property types regardless of value, including firearms and motor vehicles. Grand theft is a wobbler in most situations, meaning it can be filed as a felony or a misdemeanor, and the prosecutor has discretion over which way to go.
Robbery under PC 211 is a different category entirely. It requires taking property directly from another person by force or fear. That element is what separates burglary, robbery, and theft charges from each other and makes robbery a violent felony rather than a property crime. First-degree robbery, covering incidents in inhabited structures, against transit operators, or at ATMs, carries 3, 4, or 6 years in state prison. Second-degree robbery carries 2, 3, or 5 years. Prior strike convictions push those numbers significantly higher. In cases where the prosecution alleges force or fear, we look carefully at violent crime defense strategies alongside the theft-specific arguments from the beginning of the representation.
The Claim of Right Defense
California law recognizes a defense called claim of right: a person is not guilty of theft if they honestly believed they had a legal right to the property they took, even if that belief was wrong. The belief has to be sincere, not necessarily objectively reasonable.
This defense applies in more situations than people expect. Civil disputes that escalated into criminal charges. Property taken from a shared living situation where ownership was genuinely contested. A person recovering something they believed was wrongly taken from them. Employment situations where someone took company property they believed was owed to them as compensation. When we see a claim of right argument available, we build it around the specific evidence of what the defendant actually believed at the time, using the relationship between the parties, communications, and the surrounding context to support it.
Intent to Permanently Deprive
All California theft offenses require specific intent: the defendant must have intended to permanently take the property from the owner. Taking something intending to return it is not theft, even if taking it without permission was wrong in some other sense. This is why joyriding is charged separately from vehicle theft: one involves an intent to permanently keep the vehicle, the other does not.
In practice, we look closely at whether the prosecution can actually prove permanent intent. Evidence of the defendant returning property, attempting to return it, believing they had permission to take it, or operating under a misunderstanding about ownership all speak to this element. We also look at what the defendant did after the taking, whether the conduct was consistent with someone who intended to keep the property or consistent with something else entirely. The intent element is contested successfully in theft cases more often than defendants expect when they first come in.
Mistaken Identity in Robbery Cases
Robbery cases have a particular vulnerability: eyewitness identification. These incidents happen fast, often in low light, and victims are under serious physical and emotional stress during the encounter. Research on eyewitness reliability consistently shows elevated error rates under exactly those conditions, and the cross-racial identification problem, where witnesses are less accurate identifying people of a different race, adds another layer of concern.
We examine what the witness testimony actually establishes, along with every identification procedure that law enforcement used. In-person lineups, photo arrays, and single-suspect show-ups all have specific procedural requirements under California law, including rules about how the lineup is composed, how the administrator instructs the witness, and whether the administrator knows which person is the suspect. Violations of those procedures can result in the identification being suppressed entirely. In robbery cases across Rancho Cucamonga, Rialto, Colton, San Bernardino, and the broader county, we have challenged identifications successfully at the preliminary hearing stage before the case ever reached a jury.
Post-Conviction Options After a Theft Conviction
For clients who have already been convicted of theft-related offenses in California, expungement under PC 1203.4 is often available once probation is completed. A successful expungement lets most people truthfully answer "no" on job applications asking about criminal convictions. For grand theft convictions that were charged as felonies, a wobbler reduction under PC 17(b) may also be available, redesignating the conviction as a misdemeanor and opening additional doors for employment and housing.
Tammy Higgins spent 16 years as a San Bernardino County public defender before opening this firm, handling theft and robbery cases in the same courthouses she works in today. She has also tried more than 100 jury trials, including serious felony cases where robbery charges carried strike consequences for her clients. That background shapes how we approach the defense at every stage and how we evaluate post-conviction options once a case is resolved.
Related Topics:
