Payment PlansFacing a Theft Charge in California?
The Prosecution Must Prove You Intended to Steal — and If You Believed the Property Was Yours, You Were Authorized to Take It, or You Had a Legitimate Claim to It, That Intent Cannot Be Proven.
California criminal defense attorney David Chesley has successfully used lack of intent and claim of right defenses to defeat theft charges — including petty theft, grand theft, burglary, robbery, embezzlement, and shoplifting — in criminal courts across every county in California. Every theft offense in California requires proof of specific criminal intent. Without that intent — because of honest mistake, good-faith belief in ownership, authorization, or a genuine claim to the property — there is no theft. These defenses apply across every theft charge at every level. Build your defense now.
IMMEDIATE STEPS IF CHARGED WITH A THEFT OFFENSE:
- Do not make any statements to law enforcement or prosecutors without experienced defense counsel present — in theft cases, statements about what you believed, what you were told, what you thought you were authorized to do, and what you believed about ownership of the property are the prosecution's most important evidence and can either establish or defeat the intent element depending on how they are presented
- Do not assume the value of the property or the circumstances make the charge unavoidable — intent is an element of every theft offense regardless of the charge level, and the specific circumstances that explain your state of mind at the time are the foundation of the defense
- Preserve all documentation — any communications, written agreements, receipts, ownership records, authorization documents, prior arrangements, or other evidence that supports your belief in your right to the property or your authorization to take or use it
- Contact experienced defense counsel immediately — lack of intent and claim of right defenses are most effective when the specific facts supporting the defendant's state of mind are identified, preserved, and presented from the very first day of representation
Call now for a free, confidential consultation — available 24/7. 📞 (800) 755-5174
THE STAKES ARE REAL — AND INTENT IS THE KEY
Every theft offense in California — petty theft, grand theft, shoplifting, embezzlement, robbery, burglary, receiving stolen property — requires proof of specific criminal intent. The specific intent required varies slightly by offense: petty theft and grand theft require the intent to permanently deprive the owner; burglary requires the intent to commit theft or another felony at the time of entry; embezzlement requires the intent to defraud; receiving stolen property requires knowledge that the property was stolen. But across every theft and theft-adjacent offense, the specific intent element is not a technicality — it is a genuine constitutional requirement that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt as to every defendant in every case.
That requirement is the foundation of two of the most powerful defenses available in California theft cases: the lack of intent defense and the claim of right defense. These are not obscure procedural arguments — they are substantive defenses that go directly to the heart of what the prosecution must prove, and they succeed when the specific facts of a case establish that the defendant did not have the criminal intent the law requires.
What makes these defenses uniquely powerful is that they do not require the defendant to admit any wrongdoing. They do not concede that a crime was committed and argue for leniency. They challenge the most important element of the prosecution's case — the defendant's mental state — and when they succeed, the charge fails entirely. A defendant who genuinely believed the property was theirs, who genuinely believed they had authorization to take it, or who made an honest mistake about the circumstances did not commit theft under California law regardless of what the property was, what it was worth, or what it looked like from the outside.
A theft conviction in California — which these defenses can defeat — can mean:
- Petty theft (PC § 484/488): Up to 6 months in county jail + fine up to $1,000 — plus a permanent theft record on every background check
- Shoplifting (PC § 459.5): Up to 6 months in county jail — with immigration consequences as a crime of moral turpitude for non-U.S. citizens
- Grand theft (PC § 487): Up to 3 years in state prison as a felony — permanent felony record, firearm rights loss, professional license consequences
- Petty theft with prior (PC § 666): Wobbler — up to 3 years in state prison when prior theft convictions are alleged
- Embezzlement (PC § 503): Wobbler — misdemeanor or felony depending on value; up to 3 years in state prison for felony; professional and employment consequences beyond the criminal record
- Burglary (PC § 459): First-degree residential burglary — felony, serious felony strike, up to 6 years in state prison; second-degree commercial — wobbler, up to 3 years
- Robbery (PC § 211): Serious felony strike — up to 9 years in state prison; permanent strike consequences
- Receiving stolen property (PC § 496): Wobbler — up to 3 years in state prison as a felony; knowledge element is the primary defense target
- Theft from an elder (PC § 368): Felony with mandatory consecutive enhancements based on amount — up to decades in state prison
- Permanent criminal record — a theft conviction signals dishonesty on every background check for employment, housing, and professional licensing regardless of the charge level
- Immigration consequences — theft offenses are crimes of moral turpitude under federal immigration law; even misdemeanor theft convictions can trigger deportation and bars to naturalization for non-U.S. citizens
- Professional license consequences — mandatory reporting and potential discipline for licensed professionals in virtually every field
Call now for a free consultation — available 24/7. 📞 (800) 755-5174
THE LACK OF INTENT DEFENSE — WHAT IT IS AND HOW IT WORKS
The Specific Intent Requirement in California Theft Law
Every California theft offense requires proof of specific intent — a mental state that goes beyond the act of taking property and requires proof of a particular criminal purpose. The specific intent requirements across the most common theft offenses are:
- Petty theft and grand theft (PC § 484/487): Intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property
- Shoplifting (PC § 459.5): Intent to commit larceny at the time of entering the commercial establishment during business hours
- Burglary (PC § 459): Intent to commit theft or a felony at the time of entry into the structure
- Embezzlement (PC § 503): Fraudulent intent to deprive the owner of the property entrusted to the defendant
- Robbery (PC § 211): Intent to permanently deprive — combined with force or fear
- Receiving stolen property (PC § 496): Knowledge that the property was stolen at the time of receipt
What the Lack of Intent Defense Establishes
The lack of intent defense establishes that the defendant did not have the specific criminal intent required by the statute at the time of the alleged taking — and therefore did not commit the offense charged. The defense does not require proving what the defendant intended with certainty — it requires only establishing a reasonable doubt about whether the required intent existed. The defense succeeds through evidence of the defendant's actual state of mind: what they believed, what they understood, what they were told, and what circumstances existed that are consistent with an innocent or non-criminal purpose.
The Honest Mistake Defense
A defendant who took property under an honest mistake — genuinely believing it was their own property, genuinely believing they had permission to take it, or genuinely misunderstanding the circumstances of the taking — did not act with the intent to steal. Honest mistakes are not crimes. An honest mistake about ownership, about the location of one's own property, about the identity of the item, or about the circumstances of the transaction negates the specific intent element and defeats the theft charge. The mistake does not need to be reasonable — it needs to be genuine. A defendant who actually believed, however unreasonably, that the property was theirs or that they had authorization to take it, did not have the criminal intent required for theft.
The Temporary Taking Defense
Grand theft, petty theft, and robbery all require intent to permanently deprive the owner. A defendant who took property intending to return it — intending to borrow it, intending to use it temporarily, or taking it in circumstances where return was contemplated — did not act with the intent to permanently deprive and did not commit theft. The temporary taking defense is not a minor procedural argument — it is a direct challenge to one of the most important elements of the most common theft charges, and it succeeds when the specific circumstances of the taking are consistent with temporary rather than permanent deprivation.
The Intoxication Defense
Voluntary intoxication, while not a defense to general intent crimes, is a recognized defense to specific intent crimes — including theft. A defendant who was so intoxicated that they were incapable of forming the specific intent to steal at the time of the alleged taking may assert voluntary intoxication as a defense to the intent element. The defense requires evidence of the defendant's intoxication level at the time of the taking and expert testimony where appropriate establishing that the level of intoxication was sufficient to negate the formation of specific intent.
The Mental State Defense
A defendant who was experiencing a mental health crisis, a dissociative episode, or any other mental state that prevented them from forming the specific criminal intent required for theft did not commit the offense. Mental state defenses in theft cases focus on whether the defendant's condition at the time of the alleged taking prevented them from forming the required intent — not on a general mental health defense, but on the specific question of whether intent was actually formed.
THE CLAIM OF RIGHT DEFENSE — WHAT IT IS AND HOW IT WORKS
The Legal Basis for the Claim of Right Defense
The claim of right defense — also called the good faith claim of ownership — is codified in California law and applies to theft offenses that require an intent to steal. Under California law, a defendant who takes property in the good faith belief that they have a right to it — whether through ownership, authorization, a prior agreement, or any other legitimate basis — does not have the intent to steal and cannot be convicted of theft. The claim of right defense is a complete defense — not a mitigating factor — and it defeats the charge entirely when established.
What the Claim of Right Defense Requires
The claim of right defense requires:
- A genuine, good-faith belief that the defendant had a right to the property at the time of the taking
- The belief was honest — even if mistaken and even if unreasonable; the defendant genuinely believed they had a right to the property
- The belief applied to the specific property taken — not a general belief that money is owed but a specific belief about the right to the particular property
The belief does not need to be correct. A defendant who genuinely believed the property was theirs — even if they were wrong — has a claim of right defense if the belief was honest. The defense is about the defendant's subjective mental state, not about whether the belief was objectively justified.
Common Scenarios Where the Claim of Right Defense Applies:
Disputed ownership situations
A defendant who takes property that they genuinely believe is theirs — in the context of a relationship breakdown, a property dispute, a business dissolution, or any other situation where ownership is contested — has a claim of right defense. A person who takes back a car they believe is theirs, recovers personal items from a shared residence, or takes property they believe was purchased with their money did not steal — they acted on a genuine belief in their ownership.
Debt collection situations
California courts have recognized that a defendant who takes property in the good-faith belief that they are owed money or property — and that they are entitled to the specific property taken as payment of that debt — has a claim of right defense. A person who takes money or property in the genuine belief that it represents payment for what they are owed did not act with criminal intent even if the method of collection was self-help rather than legal process. The claim of right defense applies to debt collection situations — with important limitations that must be analyzed carefully.
Prior authorization situations
A defendant who takes property based on a genuine belief that they were authorized to do so — by a prior arrangement, a verbal agreement, a standing permission, or any other basis for reasonable authorization — did not act with the intent to steal. Prior authorization that the defendant genuinely believed was in effect at the time of the taking negates the intent element entirely. This defense applies to employees who took property they genuinely believed they were authorized to take, family members who took property under longstanding permissions, and individuals who acted on instructions they genuinely believed authorized the taking.
Trust and fiduciary situations
A trustee, executor, attorney-in-fact, or other fiduciary who takes action with the property in their charge in the genuine belief that their action was authorized under the trust, will, power of attorney, or other governing instrument did not act with fraudulent intent. The claim of right defense applies to fiduciary situations — and where the fiduciary genuinely believed their conduct was within their authority, the embezzlement or elder theft charge fails.
Joint property situations
A defendant who takes property that they genuinely believe is jointly owned — marital property, partnership property, jointly held accounts — has a claim of right defense because a person cannot steal what they genuinely believe they already own. Disputes about the ownership of jointly held property, marital assets, or partnership interests that are resolved through taking rather than legal process may produce civil liability — but they do not produce criminal theft liability when the defendant genuinely believed in their ownership interest.
Important Limitations on the Claim of Right Defense
The claim of right defense does not apply to robbery. A defendant who uses force or fear to recover property they claim to own cannot assert claim of right as a defense to robbery — because force and fear are never authorized methods of property recovery regardless of the defendant's ownership claim. The defense also does not apply where the defendant's claimed right is to money or value generally rather than to specific identifiable property — a defendant who believes they are owed money does not have a claim of right to any particular property they take as compensation.
HOW DAVID CHESLEY BUILDS AND PRESENTS THESE DEFENSES
Lack of intent and claim of right defenses are not simply asserted — they are built through careful investigation, evidence development, and presentation to prosecutors, courts, and juries in a way that creates genuine reasonable doubt about the most important element of the prosecution's case. Building these defenses effectively requires an attorney who understands the specific intent requirements of each theft offense, the specific evidence categories that establish or undermine intent, and the specific legal standards that determine when each defense is available.
David Chesley handles lack of intent and claim of right defense in theft cases in criminal courts across every major region of California — Southern California, Northern California, and Central California — and is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. He personally handles every case from first consultation through trial or resolution. No hand-offs. No junior associates. The attorney you hire is the attorney fighting for you.
Every defense begins with the right questions:
What did the defendant actually believe at the time of the alleged taking — and what evidence supports that belief?
The defendant's specific state of mind at the moment of the taking is the foundation of every intent defense. What the defendant knew, what they were told, what prior arrangements existed, what they understood about the ownership or authorization for the property, and what circumstances were present that are consistent with innocent or authorized conduct are all examined and documented from the first day. The evidence that supports the defendant's genuine belief — communications, written agreements, receipts, prior arrangements, witness accounts of relevant conversations, and any other documentation bearing on the defendant's state of mind — is identified and preserved immediately.
Is there a specific factual basis for a claim of right — and does it apply to this specific property?
The claim of right defense requires a genuine belief in a right to the specific property taken. The factual basis for that belief — prior ownership, prior authorization, debt relationship, joint ownership, or other basis for a legitimate claim — is identified and developed from the first consultation. Where the factual basis is strong and the documentation is available, the claim of right defense is the most powerful available defense and is pursued aggressively from the first day of representation.
Can the temporary taking defense defeat the permanent deprivation element?
In cases involving grand theft, petty theft, or robbery where the prosecution must prove permanent deprivation intent, the specific circumstances of the taking are examined to determine whether the evidence is consistent with temporary rather than permanent taking — and whether the temporary taking defense can be established through the defendant's communications, prior conduct, relationship with the owner, and specific circumstances of the incident.
Does the prosecution's evidence actually establish criminal intent — or does it only establish that a taking occurred?
The prosecution's evidence of the taking — surveillance footage, eyewitness accounts, the recovery of property — is examined separately from the prosecution's evidence of intent. In many theft cases, the prosecution's evidence establishes that a taking occurred but does not establish the required mental state — and that gap is the foundation of the intent defense presented to the jury.
Can the defense be presented to the prosecutor before charges are filed — or before trial — to produce a dismissal or reduction?
Lack of intent and claim of right defenses can be presented to prosecutors during the investigation phase or before trial — and when the supporting evidence is strong, presenting the defense directly to the prosecutor can produce a dismissal or significant charge reduction before the case ever reaches a jury. Early defense presentation is pursued aggressively in every case where the evidence of innocent intent is strong enough to change the prosecution's assessment of the case.
Free, confidential case review — available 24/7, no obligation. 📞 (800) 755-5174 | 📧 calllog@chesleylawyers.com
YOU HAVE RIGHTS. USE THEM.
The prosecution must prove specific criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt in every theft case. The defendant's honest belief in their right to the property, their genuine lack of intent to steal, or the temporary nature of any taking all create reasonable doubt that defeats the charge entirely. Many theft cases where intent is genuinely in question resolve with outcomes significantly better than defendants initially face:
- Charges dismissed — lack of intent or claim of right established; prosecution cannot prove criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt
- Acquittal at trial — jury finds the prosecution failed to prove the intent element; defendant found not guilty
- Charges reduced — intent evidence is strong enough to produce a significant reduction in the charge level; misdemeanor rather than felony; lesser offense rather than theft
- Felony reduced to misdemeanor — intent defense creates sufficient pressure on the prosecution's case to produce wobbler treatment; felony record avoided
- Diversion achieved — first-time defendant with strong intent defense presented to court; diversion granted; charge dismissed upon completion
- Immigration-safe resolution — theft charge resolved in a manner that does not constitute a crime of moral turpitude; non-U.S. citizen defendant's immigration status protected
- Professional license consequences avoided — resolution structured to minimize or eliminate mandatory reporting obligations
- Civil demand resolved alongside criminal case — in shoplifting and retail theft cases, civil demand addressed as part of comprehensive defense strategy
WHY CLIENTS CHOOSE DAVID CHESLEY
Direct, personal attention — statewide, 24/7
David Chesley personally handles lack of intent and claim of right theft defenses in criminal courts across all of California — Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange County, San Francisco, Sacramento, Fresno, San Jose, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, and every other jurisdiction statewide. Available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week — because theft charges move quickly, diversion windows close fast, and the evidence that supports an intent defense must be identified and preserved from the very first day. You get the attorney, not support staff.
Straight talk, always
Not every theft case has a viable intent defense — and not every intent defense produces a dismissal. The specific facts of the defendant's situation, the specific evidence of their state of mind, and the specific intent standard applicable to the charge all determine whether the defense is strong, viable, or limited. You deserve honest counsel about which situation you are actually in, how strong the defense is on your specific facts, and what the realistic outcomes are. No false promises. No sugarcoating.
Intent evidence developed from day one
The most important work in any intent-based theft defense is identifying and preserving the evidence that establishes the defendant's state of mind at the time of the taking — before that evidence disappears, before witnesses' memories fade, and before the prosecution's narrative about intent is presented to a jury without a competing account. David Chesley begins building the intent evidence record from the first day of representation.
California-wide expertise across every theft offense and every intent defense
Deep knowledge of the specific intent requirements of every California theft statute — PC § 484, PC § 487, PC § 459.5, PC § 459, PC § 503, PC § 211, PC § 496, PC § 666, PC § 368 — and the specific legal standards that govern the lack of intent defense, the claim of right defense, the honest mistake defense, the temporary taking defense, and the voluntary intoxication defense as applied to theft charges — across every region of California, Southern, Northern, and Central.
Flexible payment plans
The Law Offices of David Chesley offer flexible payment plans because cost should never be the reason someone facing a theft charge goes without experienced legal representation to present the intent defense their case deserves.
Representative Results:
- Grand theft charges dismissed — defendant took property from shared business in genuine belief it was owed to her as compensation; claim of right defense established; prosecution could not prove criminal intent
- Shoplifting charge dismissed — defendant accidentally placed item in bag while distracted with child; honest mistake defense established; intent to steal not proven beyond a reasonable doubt
- Embezzlement charges reduced — defendant had authorization for financial transactions she believed were within the scope of her authority; claim of right defense presented; felony reduced to misdemeanor
- Burglary charge defeated — defendant entered premises in genuine belief she had authorization to retrieve personal property; intent to commit theft at time of entry not established; charge dismissed
- Robbery charge reduced — force used to recover property defendant genuinely believed was his own; claim of right defense inapplicable to robbery; charge reduced to lesser offense through negotiation
- Receiving stolen property charges dismissed — defendant purchased item through legitimate transaction without knowledge of stolen status; knowledge element not proven
- Petty theft diversion achieved — first-time defendant; honest mistake defense presented to prosecution; diversion granted; charge dismissed
- Immigration-safe resolution — non-U.S. citizen defendant's theft charge resolved through diversion; crime of moral turpitude conviction avoided
Client Feedback:
"I took a piece of equipment from a job site that I genuinely believed belonged to me based on a prior arrangement. David built the claim of right defense, presented it to the prosecution, and the grand theft charge was dismissed. Intent made all the difference." — Anonymous former client
"I accidentally left a store with an item in my bag. I panicked and didn't go back. David showed the prosecution that the surveillance footage was consistent with an honest mistake, not intentional theft. Dismissed." — Anonymous former client
"I was facing embezzlement charges as a bookkeeper. David showed I was authorized for every transaction I made and genuinely believed I was acting within my authority. Charges reduced significantly." — Anonymous former client
"Non-citizen facing deportation risk from a theft charge. David resolved it through diversion in a way that avoided the moral turpitude conviction. My immigration status is safe." — Anonymous former client
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
What is the lack of intent defense in a theft case?
The lack of intent defense asserts that the defendant did not have the specific criminal intent required by the theft statute at the time of the alleged taking. Every California theft offense requires specific intent — the intent to permanently deprive the owner in theft cases, the intent to commit theft at the time of entry in burglary, fraudulent intent in embezzlement, knowledge of stolen status in receiving stolen property. If the defendant did not have that specific intent — because of honest mistake, temporary taking, intoxication, mental state, or any other circumstance that negated the required mental state — the prosecution cannot prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant is not guilty. The lack of intent defense is not a technicality — it is a direct challenge to the most important element of the prosecution's case.
What is the claim of right defense?
The claim of right defense — also called the good faith belief in ownership or authorization defense — holds that a defendant who takes property in the genuine, good-faith belief that they have a right to it did not act with the intent to steal and cannot be convicted of theft. The belief does not need to be correct or even reasonable — it needs to be genuine. A defendant who honestly believed the property was theirs, that they were authorized to take it, or that they were entitled to it as payment of a debt, did not commit theft regardless of whether their belief was objectively justified. The claim of right defense is a complete defense — it defeats the charge entirely when established, not just reduces the penalty.
Can the claim of right defense apply even if I was wrong about my ownership?
Yes — and this is the most important aspect of the claim of right defense. The defense is about the defendant's genuine subjective belief, not about whether that belief was objectively correct. A defendant who genuinely but mistakenly believed the property was theirs — who took their neighbor's bike thinking it was their own, who took property from a shared residence thinking it belonged to them, or who recovered property in the genuine belief they had a prior ownership claim — has a claim of right defense even if they were factually wrong about their ownership. The mistake negates the criminal intent that makes the taking theft. Being wrong about ownership is not a crime — taking property that belongs to someone else while genuinely believing it is yours is not theft under California law.
Does the claim of right defense apply to all theft charges?
The claim of right defense applies to all theft charges that require an intent to steal — including petty theft, grand theft, shoplifting, embezzlement, and burglary. It does not apply to robbery — because the use of force or fear to recover property is not authorized even when the defendant has a legitimate ownership claim; a person cannot use violence to recover their own property and claim right of ownership as a defense. The defense also does not apply where the claimed right is to money or value generally rather than to specific identifiable property — a general belief that one is owed money does not create a right to take any particular property as compensation.
What is the temporary taking defense — and how is it different from claim of right?
The temporary taking defense applies specifically to the permanent deprivation element of grand theft, petty theft, and robbery. These offenses require proof that the defendant intended to permanently deprive the owner of the property — not just to use it temporarily. A defendant who took property intending to return it — borrowing, temporary use, or taking with a genuine plan to return — did not act with permanent deprivation intent and did not commit theft. The claim of right defense addresses the nature of the defendant's belief in their ownership or authorization; the temporary taking defense addresses the duration of the intended deprivation. Both attack the intent element, but from different angles — and both are evaluated in every case where the circumstances support them.
What if I was drunk or under the influence when the alleged theft occurred?
Voluntary intoxication is a recognized defense to specific intent crimes in California — including theft. If the defendant was so intoxicated at the time of the alleged taking that they were incapable of forming the specific intent to steal, voluntary intoxication can defeat the intent element. The defense requires evidence of the defendant's intoxication level at the time and, in appropriate cases, expert testimony establishing that the level of intoxication was sufficient to prevent formation of specific intent. While voluntary intoxication is not a defense to every crime, it is a genuine and recognized defense to the specific intent element of theft — and its availability is evaluated in every case where the defendant's intoxication level at the time is relevant to the intent analysis.
How does the prosecution prove intent — and how is it challenged?
The prosecution proves intent through circumstantial evidence — the defendant's actions before, during, and after the taking; statements the defendant made; the defendant's conduct when confronted; and the surrounding circumstances of the taking. Intent is never directly observable — it is inferred from conduct. This means that every piece of evidence the prosecution uses to establish intent is a piece of circumstantial evidence that is subject to an alternative innocent interpretation. Surveillance footage that shows a defendant placing an item in a bag can be interpreted as deliberate concealment or as inadvertent placement. The defendant walking past a cash register can be interpreted as intentional non-payment or as distraction and honest mistake. Every category of circumstantial intent evidence is examined to determine whether an alternative innocent explanation creates reasonable doubt — and those alternative explanations are developed, documented, and presented to prosecutors and juries from the first day of representation.
Can these defenses apply in felony theft cases — or only minor cases?
These defenses apply across every level of theft charge — misdemeanor petty theft, felony grand theft, residential burglary, embezzlement, and elder theft. Intent is a required element of every theft offense regardless of the charge level or the value of the property. A claim of right defense that defeats a felony grand theft charge is just as legally viable as one that defeats a misdemeanor petty theft charge — and the stakes are proportionally higher. In felony cases — where state prison, a permanent felony record, firearm rights loss, and professional license consequences are at stake — the intent defense is even more important, because the consequences of an uncontested conviction are so much more severe.
Can a theft charge affect my immigration status?
Yes — seriously and in some cases permanently. Theft offenses are crimes of moral turpitude under federal immigration law — and even a misdemeanor theft conviction can trigger deportation proceedings, bars to naturalization, and other serious immigration consequences for non-U.S. citizens. The claim of right defense, the lack of intent defense, and diversion resolutions that avoid a theft conviction entirely are all specifically valuable for non-U.S. citizen defendants because they avoid the moral turpitude finding that triggers immigration consequences. For any non-U.S. citizen facing a theft charge, immigration consequences must be analyzed from the very first consultation — and the defense strategy must account for that exposure at every step.
Are payment plans available?
Yes. The Law Offices of David Chesley offers flexible payment plans because cost should never be the reason someone facing a theft charge goes without the experienced legal representation needed to present the intent defense their case deserves. Call to discuss options during your free consultation.
More questions? We are available 24/7 — free consultation, no obligation, no pressure. 📞 (800) 755-5174
FREE CONSULTATION — CALL NOW — 24/7
In theft cases where intent is the central defense, the evidence that proves what the defendant actually believed at the time of the taking is time-sensitive and must be preserved immediately. Witness accounts of conversations that establish the defendant's belief in their ownership or authorization fade with time — and witnesses who clearly remember a relevant conversation today may remember it less precisely in three months. Documents that support the claim of right — written agreements, text messages, receipts, prior correspondence — can be lost, deleted, or become unavailable through inaction. And the prosecution's charging theory — built around the narrative that the defendant intended to steal — hardens with each passing day without a defense attorney presenting the alternative account that explains the defendant's actual state of mind and creates the reasonable doubt the prosecution must overcome.
Don't assume the circumstances make the charge unavoidable. Don't assume the surveillance footage or eyewitness account is the whole story. And don't wait. If you have been charged with or are under investigation for any theft offense — petty theft, grand theft, shoplifting, embezzlement, burglary, or any related charge — and if you believe you had a legitimate reason for your actions, a genuine claim to the property, or any other basis for an intent defense, call now. The earlier David Chesley gets involved, the more options exist to build the intent defense, present it to the prosecution, and resolve the case before the consequences of an uncontested conviction — the criminal record, the immigration consequences, the professional license impact — are locked in permanently.
The Law Offices of David Chesley offer a free, confidential consultation available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No judgment. No pressure. Just clear, honest answers about whether the specific facts of your case support a lack of intent or claim of right defense — and what can be done right now to build and present it.
Flexible payment plans available — because cost should never be the reason someone with a genuine intent defense faces a theft conviction alone.
David Chesley handles lack of intent and claim of right theft defenses in criminal courts across all of California — Los Angeles County, Orange County, San Diego County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, Ventura County, Santa Barbara County, Kern County, Fresno County, Sacramento County, Alameda County, Santa Clara County, San Francisco County, Contra Costa County, San Joaquin County, Stanislaus County, Monterey County, and every other jurisdiction statewide.
Se habla español.
📞 (800) 755-5174 📧 calllog@chesleylawyers.com 🌐 www.chesleylawyers.com
"Every theft charge in California requires proof of specific criminal intent — and intent that was never formed cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A genuine belief in ownership, a legitimate claim to the property, an honest mistake, a temporary taking, or any other circumstance that negated the required criminal mental state is not a technicality. It is the difference between a crime and conduct that is not criminal. My commitment is developing and presenting the intent defense your specific facts support — and ensuring that what you actually believed at the time is part of the evidence the jury hears." — David Chesley, California Criminal Defense Attorney
