David Zorich is eligible for potential resentencing if the vehicle he stole in 1997 was worth $525 or less. That vehicle was (accordingly to the police report) a 1979 AMC Concord with 105,352 miles on it and that was in "fair" condition.
What do you think someone would have paid in 1997 for a 17-year old AMC Concord with 100,000+ miles on it?
Mr. Zorich's lawyers submit an estimate from Kelly Bluebook: it says that vehicle's worth $500. The prosecution responds with . . . essentially nothing. Just a form that checked a box that asserted (without any evidence whatsoever) that the vehicle was worth $1000. Then the prosecution didn't even show up at the hearing.
The Court of Appeal says -- quite rightly -- that the uncontradicted evidence submitted by Mr. Zorich was good enough to prove the vehicle was worth $525 or less.
(Justice Moore says that even though the vehicle's odometer read "5,352," it almost certainly had "rolled over" and really represented 105,352 miles since it'd be super unusual for a 17-year old car in only "fair" condition to actually have only 5,352 miles on it. Totally right. Though I think that Justice Moore might actually be understating the number miles on the vehicle. My bet is that the vehicle has probably rolled over twice at this point. It's 17 years old. If it's driven 12,000 miles a year -- which is around normal -- that's 204,000 miles. Pretty much spot on the actual number of miles on the vehicle (205,000) if it has rolled over twice. Indeed, the actual number of miles driven per year, according to the Department of Transportation is even larger than this, and is around 13,500. So my guess is that the vehicle is actually worth less than the $500 that the defense postulates, since a car with 200,000 miles on it is worth a fair piece less than one with 100,000 miles on it.)
The other funny thing about this case is the discrepancy between the resources devoted to the case in the trial court and the resources devoted to it on appeal. Below, the prosecution doesn't bother to do anything other than check a box; it offers no evidence, doesn't submit a brief, doesn't bother to argue against defendant's evidence, and doesn't even bother to show up at the hearing. (Mind you, it still wins, which might tell you something.) Yet, on appeal, we appoint a lawyer for defendant, have him file an appeal, have the Attorney General file a full brief, etc. (All for naught, I might add.)
Given that you know that a criminal defendant has a right to appeal, maybe the prosecution putting in a little more effort below might make rational sense. Since, as here, it might make those cost "savings" arising out of not doing anything at all in the trial court essentially meaningless.
The long and short of it: A 17-year old vehicle that runs but that has over 100,000 (or even 200,000) miles on it ain't worth much at all.