Carjacking is a serious violent felony in California.

It's defined under Penal Code 215 as the felonious taking of a motor vehicle in the possession of another, from their person or immediate presence, against their will and with the intent to either permanently or temporarily deprive the person of possession, accomplished by means of force or fear. 

Essentially, carjacking is a specialized form of violent robbery that involves a vehicle and carries significantly harsher penalties than standard grand theft auto.

For high-profile individuals, such as professional athletes, entertainers, or corporate executives, a carjacking allegation often stems from a high-stakes misunderstanding, a dispute over vehicle "borrowing," or a chaotic public encounter.

You need to get ahead of these charges, ideally before a filing occurs, with the criminal defense attorneys at Eisner Gorin LLP. Request a private case evaluation by calling (818) 781-1570.

Quick Answer: What Is Carjacking in California?

Carjacking occurs when someone takes a motor vehicle from another person's possession, from their immediate presence, against their will, using force or fear, with the intent to deprive them of it temporarily or permanently.

What is the Legal Definition of Carjacking?

To secure a conviction under California Penal Code 215, the prosecution must prove several distinct elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

• Possession: The defendant took a vehicle that was in the lawful possession of another person.
• Immediate Presence: The vehicle was taken from that person's immediate presence (e.g., they were in the car, getting out of the car, or standing near it).
• Against the Will: The vehicle was taken against that person's will (without consent).
• Force or Fear: The taking was accomplished through the use of physical force or the threat of injury (fear).
• Intent to Deprive: The defendant intended to deprive the victim of the vehicle either permanently or temporarily.

Unlike robbery under Penal Code 211, which requires the intent to permanently deprive someone of property, carjacking only requires the intent to deprive them temporarily.

This distinction is critical because it prevents defendants from arguing they only intended to "joyride" or return the car later to avoid a carjacking charge.

Example of Carjacking

A driver is stopped at a red light when another person opens the door, threatens harm, and takes the vehicle. This is a classic example of carjacking because the vehicle was taken from the victim's immediate presence using fear.

Is Carjacking a "Strike" Offense in California?

Yes, carjacking is classified as a violent felony under the California "Three Strikes" Law. A conviction results in a "strike" on your permanent criminal record. This has long-term implications, including:

• Sentence Enhancement: Any subsequent felony conviction will result in a doubled sentence.
• Life Sentence Potential: A third strike can lead to a prison sentence of 25 years to life.
• Prison Credit Limitations: Those convicted of violent felonies are limited to earning only 15% conduct credits, meaning they must serve at least 85% of their total sentence.

Penalties and Sentencing for PC 215

Carjacking is always a felony. Meaning it isn't a wobbler offense that can be charged as either a felony or misdemeanor, and your attorney could argue the charge down.

The standard prison sentence for a conviction under PC 215 in California is 3, 5, or 9 years in state prison. However, these base terms are frequently increased by various sentencing enhancements.

The 10-20-Life Use of a Firearm Law

If a firearm is involved in the commission of a carjacking, Penal Code 12022.53 (the "10-20-Life" law) applies:

• 10 Years: For personal use of a firearm.
• 20 Years: For intentionally discharging a firearm.
• 25 Years to Life: For discharging a firearm and causing great bodily injury or death.

Great Bodily Injury (GBI)

Under Penal Code 12022.7, if the victim suffers a significant or substantial physical injury during the crime, great bodily injury, the defendant may face an additional and consecutive three to six years in prison.

Carjacking vs Robbery in California

Quick Summary: What Is the Difference?

Carjacking is a specialized form of robbery that only applies to motor vehicles and does not require intent to permanently keep the vehicle. Robbery applies to any property and requires intent to permanently deprive the owner.

Key Takeaway

All carjackings are robberies, but not all robberies are carjackings. The involvement of a vehicle and the intent to deprive, even temporarily, are what distinguish carjacking under California law.

Related California Crimes

Several related offenses are often charged alongside or instead of carjacking:

Penal Code 211 – Robbery

Taking property from a person using force or fear.

Penal Code 487(d)(1) – Grand Theft Auto

GTA involves taking a vehicle without force or fear.

Vehicle Code 10851 – Unlawful Taking of a Vehicle

Driving or taking a vehicle without the owner's consent.

Penal Code 207 – Kidnapping

Moving a person a substantial distance without consent.

Penal Code 245 – Assault with a Deadly Weapon

Using a weapon during an altercation involving a vehicle.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is carjacking different from stealing a car?

Yes. Carjacking involves force or fear and direct confrontation, while auto theft does not.

Can you be charged if you planned to return the car?

Yes. Temporary deprivation still qualifies as carjacking.

Is carjacking always a felony?

Yes. It is not a misdemeanor or “wobbler” offense.

What if no one was hurt?

Even without injury, the use of force or fear can still lead to a carjacking charge.

Can carjacking charges be reduced?

Yes. If key elements like force or intent are missing, charges may be reduced or dismissed.

Defense Strategies

At Eisner Gorin LLP, we use a variety of defenses to fight carjacking charges. The strategies we utilize will depend on the facts and circumstances of your specific case.

Challenging "Force or Fear"

The prosecution must prove that the victim was intimidated or physically coerced. In many cases, a heated argument occurs, and the defendant drives away in a car they share access to. If no weapon was used and no threats of violence were made, the case should be reduced to a non-violent theft offense or dismissed entirely.

For high-profile clients, the primary defense often centers on the context of the interaction. If an athlete or celebrity believes they had permission to take a vehicle, or if the encounter was a verbal dispute rather than a physical threat, the "force or fear" requirement is not met.

Misunderstood "Borrowing" or Consent

In social circles involving high-net-worth individuals, vehicles are frequently shared among entourages, friends, and business associates.

A carjacking charge may arise when a vehicle owner becomes disgruntled or when a "borrowing" arrangement is rescinded mid-drive. If the defendant reasonably believed they had consent to operate the vehicle, the criminal intent required for PC 215 is absent.

Lack of Immediate Presence

If the vehicle's owner was inside a building when the defendant took the car from the driveway, the vehicle was not in the "immediate presence" of the victim. In such cases, while the defendant might be guilty of grand theft, they are not guilty of carjacking.

Example Defense Scenario

A person takes a vehicle after a dispute, believing they had permission to use it. No threats or violence occur. In this situation, the case may be reduced to a non-violent theft offense rather than carjacking.

Why Early Legal Intervention Matters

Carjacking charges are often filed quickly and aggressively. Early legal intervention can:

• Challenge the evidence before charges are filed
• Present mitigating facts to prosecutors
• Prevent overcharging or enhancements
• Protect your reputation and future

Case Study: Challenging the Element of Fear

A professional athlete was out with acquaintances at a high-end lounge in Los Angeles. A dispute began over the ownership and keys to a luxury SUV.

The athlete, believing he had a rightful claim to the vehicle due to a previous payment agreement, took the keys from a table and drove off while the other party shouted at him. The other party called the police and reported a carjacking, claiming they were "terrified" by the athlete's size and demeanor.

Our criminal defense team focused on the "force or fear" element. We gathered surveillance footage from the lounge and witness testimony that showed the interaction was a verbal disagreement over property rights. There was no physical touching and no verbal threats of harm.

By demonstrating that the "fear" claimed by the accuser was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence, and that the dispute was civil in nature regarding the "borrowing" of the car, we were able to prevent the carjacking charges from being filed.

The case was resolved as a civil matter without the athlete ever setting foot in a criminal courtroom.

Why a Pre-Filing Intervention is Best

For celebrities and public figures, the mere "headline" of a carjacking arrest can be career-ending. The goal is to keep the case out of the public eye as much as possible.

A pre-filing intervention involves our attorneys meeting with the prosecutor before the prosecutor decides to file formal charges.

We present mitigating evidence, witness statements, and legal arguments to convince the District Attorney that the case is either unprovable or better suited for a lesser charge like joyriding or a misdemeanor.

Avoiding a formal carjacking charge ensures:

• No "Strike" Record: Protecting your future under the Three Strikes law.
• Professional Continuity: Preventing the loss of endorsement deals or employment contracts.
• Privacy: Resolving the matter through legal channels before it reaches the media.

Kidnapping During a Carjacking: Penal Code 209.5

One enhancement we see (Penal Code 209.5) in carjacking cases in Southern California courts involves kidnapping during a carjacking. 

This occurs if a person is moved a “substantial distance” that is more than "merely incidental" to the carjacking, and which increases the risk of harm to the victim.

If a defendant takes a car and the passenger remains inside for several blocks, the prosecution will often aggressively pursue this charge.

Our firm works to show that any movement was minimal, incidental, or that the passenger was free to leave at any time, thereby mitigating the risk of a life sentence.

Contact a California Criminal Defense Attorney

Facing carjacking charges is serious. The legal system is designed to punish this offense with the utmost severity. Still, the specific facts of your case, especially the absence of force or fear and the backing of a qualified legal team, can change the outcome.

We specialize in representing individuals whose reputations and livelihoods are at stake. Our approach is to be proactive, discreet, and legally aggressive.

If you are being investigated for carjacking, you must act before the prosecution solidifies its position. Contact the criminal defense attorneys at Eisner Gorin LLP to discuss your options and protect your future. Contact us at (818) 781-1570 or visit our contact page.

Related Content

• Violent Crimes
• DNA Submission