Is a defendant entitled to a retrial on all charges including burglary if he is convicted of receiving stolen property?

One final point of clarification is necessary. Defendant contends that if he is not entitled to a retrial on all charges then it is the burglary charges which must be reversed since receiving stolen property is a lesser offense than burglary. This argument finds some support in the language in People v. Briggs (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 1034, at page 1037, 97 Cal.Rptr. 372. A contrary indication is found in People v. Lawrence, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at page 640, 169 Cal.Rptr. 245, where the court indicated that the receiving conviction, as the lesser offense, should be reversed. In fact, it is irrelevant which is the lesser and which the greater offense. As we have noted, theft or theft-related offenses and receiving stolen property are not mutually exclusive offenses; it is the theft or theft-related offense which has the preclusive effect. Thus, if the defendant is found to be the thief he cannot be convicted of receiving the same property, and where he is so convicted it is the receiving conviction which is improper. For this reason it is always the receiving conviction which cannot stand, regardless whether it is the lesser or the greater offense.