California Penal Code section 484 is the statute that defines theft in California. Every theft prosecution in the state, from a $20 candy bar to a multi-million-dollar embezzlement, traces back to the elements set out in PC 484. The dollar amount and the manner of taking determine whether the case is charged as petty theft (PC 490.2 / Prop 47), grand theft (PC 487), or a higher-degree felony, but the underlying definition is the same: every theft case requires the prosecution to prove that the defendant took someone else’s property without consent and with the specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of it.
The four elements of theft under PC 484
To convict on any PC 484 theft, the prosecution must prove all four of the following beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the defendant took property that belonged to someone else; (2) the defendant took the property without the owner’s consent; (3) when the defendant took the property, the defendant intended to deprive the owner of it permanently or to deprive the owner of a major portion of its value or enjoyment; and (4) the defendant moved the property, however slightly, and kept it for any period of time, however brief.
Each of those elements opens a potential defense. The “permanent intent” element is particularly important because it requires specific intent. Borrowing without permission, mistakenly taking something you believed was yours, or taking with the intent to return after temporary use are all separate from theft because the specific intent to permanently deprive is missing.
Petty theft vs. grand theft after Prop 47
Proposition 47, passed in November 2014 and codified at Penal Code section 490.2, reclassified most thefts of property valued at $950 or less as misdemeanor petty theft. Before Prop 47, certain theft types (auto theft, firearm theft, theft from a person) were grand theft regardless of value. After Prop 47, theft of property worth $950 or less is generally a misdemeanor unless the defendant has prior serious or violent felony convictions or certain registrable offenses, or unless the property type is specifically excluded.
This means a person charged today with stealing $300 of merchandise from a retail store is almost always facing a misdemeanor petty theft charge under PC 484/490.2, even if the same conduct would have been chargeable as grand theft before Prop 47.
Common petty theft defenses
Lack of specific intent. The prosecution must prove the defendant intended to permanently deprive the owner at the time of the taking. Forgetting to pay, walking out with an item still in a cart while distracted, or believing the item was already paid for can all defeat the intent element.
Claim of right. A good-faith belief that you had a legal right to the property, even if mistaken, is a complete defense to theft. People v. Tufunga (1999) 21 Cal.4th 935.
Consent. If the owner or someone with apparent authority gave permission, there is no taking “without consent.” Disputed consent issues often arise in roommate, family, or business-partner cases.
Identity / mistaken identification. Loss prevention reports and security camera footage are often less conclusive than they appear at first glance. Witness identification challenges remain viable, especially in busy retail settings.
Improperly obtained evidence. If the stop, detention, or search that produced the evidence violated the Fourth Amendment, a motion to suppress under Penal Code section 1538.5 can knock out the prosecution’s case.
Penalties for petty theft (PC 484/490.2)
Misdemeanor petty theft is punishable by up to six months in county jail and a fine of up to $1,000. Most first-offense petty thefts resolve without jail time through diversion, informal probation, community service, theft impulse classes, or a plea to an infraction. The collateral consequences (criminal record, immigration impact, professional licensing issues) often outweigh the direct sentence.
Pre-filing intervention can keep the charge from being filed
Many petty theft cases are referred to the District Attorney by retail loss prevention before a formal charge is filed. The window between police report and DA filing decision (typically 30 to 90 days) is the highest-leverage moment for defense work. A pre-filing letter and supporting materials, restitution payment, and a credible defense narrative can result in a no-file decision or a referral to civil compromise.
Related pages
- Theft Crimes Defense Overview
- PC § 487 Grand Theft Defense
- PC § 490.2 Prop 47 Petty Theft
- Pre-Filing Intervention
- Expungement and Record Sealing
The Law Office of Zak Fisher is a Los Angeles criminal defense practice. This page is general legal information about California Penal Code § 484, not legal advice for any specific matter. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome in your case. No attorney-client relationship is formed without a signed engagement letter. Attorney Advertising. Zak Fisher, Esq., California Bar No. 332712.
Skip to content