Guilty Plea of Conspiracy to Commit Petty Theft Survives Appeal
Post number 5373
When You Plead Guilty be Ready to Go to Jail
Posted on June 16, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In The People v. Jacob Ossian Alberry, case number A173036, California Court of Appeals, First District, Fourth Division (June 2, 2026) Jacob Ossian Alberry and another person entered a Kohl’s store together, selected merchandise, and left without paying. The original complaint charged conspiracy to commit organized retail theft, organized retail theft, and petty theft.
After the preliminary hearing raised doubts about proof of an intent to sell, exchange, or return the merchandise for value, the prosecution dropped the organized retail theft counts and filed an information charging felony conspiracy to commit petty theft and misdemeanor petty theft.
Alberry later pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit petty theft and appealed the denial of his section 995 motion.
LAW:
When a general criminal statute overlaps with a more specific statute covering the same conduct, courts in accord with In re Williamson (1954) 43 Cal.2d 651 (Williamson) may infer that the Legislature intended prosecution to proceed only under the specific statute. The rule does not apply when the statutes target different conduct or different kinds of culpability.
Conspiracy under Penal Code section 182 requires an agreement to commit a crime, while organized retail theft under section 490.4 requires acting in concert to steal merchandise with the intent to sell, exchange, or return it for value.
DISCUSSION:
Alberry argued that organized retail theft is the more specific statute and that a prosecution for conspiracy to commit petty theft was barred by Williamson because the same conduct commonly falls within section 490.4. The People responded that the two offenses are materially different because organized retail theft requires proof of theft for financial gain, whereas conspiracy to commit petty theft does not. The prosecution also emphasized that acting in concert is not the same as entering into a conspiratorial agreement.
ANALYSIS:
The Court of Appeal agreed with the People. It held that the Willliamson rule did not apply because the statutes reflect different legislative aims and different culpability requirements.
Organized retail theft was enacted to address coordinated theft for resale or other financial gain, a more specialized and sophisticated offense than conspiracy to commit petty theft. Here, the information did not allege facts establishing organized retail theft, particularly the required intent to sell, exchange, or return the merchandise for value.
The Court of Appeals concluded that Williamson rule does not apply to Alberry’s case because the Legislature intended conspiracy to commit petty theft and organized retail theft to be different crimes requiring different elements of proof. In the operative charging document, an information filed after a preliminary hearing, the prosecution did not allege any facts showing that Alberry could be convicted of organized retail theft. Nor are we persuaded that the prosecution was required to so allege.
Because the prosecution was not required to charge a crime the facts did not adequately support, it could proceed on conspiracy to commit petty theft.
CONCLUSION:
The court affirmed the judgment. It concluded that section 490.4 does not preempt prosecution for conspiracy to commit petty theft on these facts, so Alberry’s conviction stands.
Because the Williamson rule prohibits prosecution under a general statute when the conduct at issue is covered under a more specific statute, a necessary predicate to the application of the rule is that the defendant’s conduct fits the elements of the assertively more specific statute.
ZALMA OPINION
Petty theft is almost a legal crime in the state of California making the ability of a retailer like Kohl’s make a profit. Alberry and his friends overdid the retail theft and were arrested so that Alberry felt compelled to plead guilty and then sought to reverse his plea by arguing esoteric case law. It didn’t work and his conviction was affirmed.
The prosecution did not seek to convict Alberry of organized retail theft, nor make allegations sufficient to support such a charge. Therefore, Alberry failed to establish that the prosecution was required to do so. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals rejected Alberry’s argument that, under the Williamson rule, the Court of Appeals must reverse his conviction for conspiracy to commit petty theft. The judgment was affirmed.
(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://gbarryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Coverage for Damage to Vacant Dwelling Limited
Post number 5388
Vandalism Damage to Vacant Dwelling Excluded
Posted on July 7, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Tyrone Williamson v. Farmers Insurance Co., 2026-Ohio-2530, C. A. No. 30717, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Montgomery (July 2, 2026) Tyrone Williamson owned a duplex in Dayton, Ohio that he rented as two separate units. While the units were unoccupied by tenants, break-ins occurred in February, March, and April 2024, causing damage to doors, windows, walls, plumbing, flooring, fencing, lighting, a ceiling fan, grass, and other parts of the property, and resulting in the theft of items including tools, generators, a power washer, an air-conditioning unit, car wheels, and a radio.
Farmers Insurance paid approximately $17,000 for some damage from the first break-in but denied other claimed losses, including additional property damage, stolen personal property, and lost rent.
The trial court granted summary judgment to Farmers Insurance on Williamson’s ...
Court Allows itself to be Abused by Convicted Murderer and Insurance Fraudster
A Prisoner Has a Limited Right to file a Habeas Petition but Must do so Properly
Post number 5387
Posted on July 6, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Court Allows itself to be Abused by Convicted Murderer and Insurance Fraudster
A Prisoner Has a Limited Right to file a Habeas Petition but Must do so Properly
Post number 5387
In Tami Duvall v. State Of Indiana, No. 1:25-cv-01239-SEB-TAB, United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division (July 1, 2026) Indiana prisoner Tami Duvall filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging her 2011 Indiana convictions for murder, insurance fraud, and obstruction of justice.
Law:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) governs amendment of pleadings, allowing amendment as of course within specified time limits and otherwise permitting amendment with leave of court when justice so requires.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits the Court to strike redundant matter. Rule 5 of the Rules ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
