Gambler charged with marking cards at Barona
Thread Rating:
Back in July, world-famous gambler Anargyros Karabourniotis, 62, who goes by the name “Archie Karas,” was caught by the Barona Gaming Commission allegedly marking cards at a Barona Casino blackjack table.
On Friday, District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis announced that Karas had been arrested at his Las Vegas home on Sept. 24 for his alleged involvement in the gambling scheme.
He’s now facing charges of burglary, winning by fraudulent means and cheating, and will be extradited to San Diego to face those counts, Dumanis said."
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Gambler-Archie-Karas-Charged-in-Barona-Casino-Cheating-Scheme-225574102.html
Sounds like some pretty serious charges. I wonder if he figured that it would be easier to get away with it at a tribal casino instead of a big Las Vegas or Atlantic City casino.
I think there's a mistake in the news story though: "The DA’s office says Karas was caught on surveillance tape marking cards in an effort to identify the value of the cards that he was dealt at the Barona Casino blackjack table."
You don't need to mark cards to know the value of the cards you've been dealt ;) I assume he was looking at the card in the dealer's hand but then I don't know anything about marking cards.
Its the dealer's Down Card or Hole Card that is of interest. Also the value of the next card in the shoe.
Marking of cards rarely indicates their exact denomination... its usually sufficient to mark the ten-value cards.
One system is a woman's makeup and some contact lenses. Each high value card can be daubed with a spot of makeup and the contact lenses pass UV light or something. Sometimes finger nails are used. This is why casinos really like games where players can not touch the cards.
Crimping of daubing of cards requires re-use of the cards.
Surveillance in the BJ pits is at its highest.
Winning is particularly alerting to surveillance.
Anargyros Karabourniotis, also known as "Archie Karas," faces three years in prison if convicted.
http://www.10news.com/news/hearing-for-gambler-archie-karas-who-is-accused-of-cheating-at-barona-casino
Quote: onenickelmiracleYou're supposed to only be held accountable for your own country's laws, so I don't know how this can actually go down. Whose laws actually rule the game at a NA casino?
I think he is being charged criminally. CA laws apply.
Barona is the most successful casino in the southern California. They know what they are doing.
If you are a card counter playing high stake, your play probably can last for couple hours at most before
their very polite 86. If you think you can cheat in Barona, think again!
Quote: onenickelmiracleYou're supposed to only be held accountable for your own country's laws, so I don't know how this can actually go down. Whose laws actually rule the game at a NA casino?
I have no knowledge about this particular case, but any felony charge alleged to have been committed on tribal land is generally prosecuted in federal court.
Quote: PokeraddictI have no knowledge about this particular case, but any felony charge alleged to have been committed on tribal land is generally prosecuted in federal court.
This isn't in Federal Court
Quote: boymimboHe is being tried in the San Diego Superior Court, though I'm confused on where the "burglary" comes from.
At Common Law, burglary was:
Breaking and Entering a Dwelling at Night with Intent to commit a Felony.
By statutes its been extended to non-dwellings such as commercial structures or vehicles, penalties may be enhanced for nighttime but the crime can now be committed in daylight.
Felony means just that: any felony. Rapists are often charged with burglary and often plea bargain for burglary charges. So if his cheating was a felony then the burglary charge is valid.
If he entered the casino with an intent to commit a felony, its burglary. That is what they need to extradite him, a felony charge.
Quote: boymimboHe is being tried in the San Diego Superior Court, though I'm confused on where the "burglary" comes from.
California Penal Code, Section 459:
Quote:Every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel, as defined in Section 21 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, floating home, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 18075.55 of the Health and Safety Code, railroad car, locked or sealed cargo container, whether or not mounted on a vehicle, trailer coach, as defined in Section 635 of the Vehicle Code, any house car, as defined in Section 362 of the Vehicle Code, inhabited camper, as defined in Section 243 of the Vehicle Code, vehicle as defined by the Vehicle Code, when the doors are locked, aircraft as defined by Section 21012 of the Public Utilities Code, or mine or any underground portion thereof, with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary.
Quote: PBguy"A notorious gambler known for the largest and longest documented winning streak in gambling history now faces charges of cheating in connection with a card-marking scheme allegedly carried out at San Diego’s Barona Casino.
Back in July, world-famous gambler Anargyros Karabourniotis, 62, who goes by the name “Archie Karas,” was caught by the Barona Gaming Commission allegedly marking cards at a Barona Casino blackjack table.
On Friday, District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis announced that Karas had been arrested at his Las Vegas home on Sept. 24 for his alleged involvement in the gambling scheme.
He’s now facing charges of burglary, winning by fraudulent means and cheating, and will be extradited to San Diego to face those counts, Dumanis said."
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Gambler-Archie-Karas-Charged-in-Barona-Casino-Cheating-Scheme-225574102.html
Sounds like some pretty serious charges. I wonder if he figured that it would be easier to get away with it at a tribal casino instead of a big Las Vegas or Atlantic City casino.
I think there's a mistake in the news story though: "The DA’s office says Karas was caught on surveillance tape marking cards in an effort to identify the value of the cards that he was dealt at the Barona Casino blackjack table."
You don't need to mark cards to know the value of the cards you've been dealt ;) I assume he was looking at the card in the dealer's hand but then I don't know anything about marking cards.
I'm curious as to what caught by the gaming commission means? A $10/hr surveillance rookie got him? An undercover gaming agent? How...
Quote: DocAs they say, IANAL, but after reading FleaStiff's and ThatDonGuy's posts, I still don't see how there was burglary. Don't all of those descriptions seem to indicate that the perpetrator entered the place of the felony in some sort of unauthorized manner? If you go into a casino to gamble, even if you are planning/trying to cheat, it seems that your entry is quite legitimate; it's just your behavior after you get in that might be criminal.
According to the cited passage, "burglary" = "entering a place with the intent to commit a felony." If he walked in to the casino planning to mark the cards, then assuming marking the cards is a felony (which is a different question) then that's burglary.
Quote: FleaStiffAt Common Law, burglary was:
Breaking and Entering a Dwelling at Night with Intent to commit a Felony.
By statutes its been extended to non-dwellings such as commercial structures or vehicles, penalties may be enhanced for nighttime but the crime can now be committed in daylight.
Felony means just that: any felony. Rapists are often charged with burglary and often plea bargain for burglary charges. So if his cheating was a felony then the burglary charge is valid.
If he entered the casino with an intent to commit a felony, its burglary. That is what they need to extradite him, a felony charge.
The most important change to burglary from common-law to statute was dropping the requirement that it had to happen at night. Penalties are not enhanced solely because it is night, except under prosecutorial and judicial discretion to forgo leniency.
The burglary charge is invalid, unless he was trespassing when he entered the property (likely no) AND the doors were closed (likely yes). The issue will be whether he was trespassing. His intent to commit to a felony is not at issue. Bank robbers aren't burglars.
Does this statute mean that any indoor felony includes burglary? Keep your crimes out in the open air, I guess.
Quote: DocI guess it's a bit unclear to me just which part of the legalese is affected by the phrase "when the doors are locked." If that just applies to the immediately-preceding case, does that mean that stealing from an unlocked vehicle does not constitute burglary?
Does this statute mean that any indoor felony includes burglary? Keep your crimes out in the open air, I guess.
No, stealing from an unlocked vehicle is not burglary because it is not a dwelling, nor an enumerated structure. According to the statute, a locked car, specifically, meets the dwelling requirement in that state.
A door used to have to be locked and the lock broken to constitute burglary. That has changed in modern day. If you walk thru an open doorway, it is not burglary. If you push open a door, it is burglary. If the door is half-open, and you squirm by it without touching it, it is not burglary--but if you touch and it moves, it is burglary. Well, you have to satisfy the other requirements, but this is the 'Breaking' element.
Quote: DocI guess it's a bit unclear to me just which part of the legalese is affected by the phrase "when the doors are locked." If that just applies to the immediately-preceding case, does that mean that stealing from an unlocked vehicle does not constitute burglary?
Does this statute mean that any indoor felony includes burglary? Keep your crimes out in the open air, I guess.
I'll defer to CA-licensed attorneys on this one, but I think it just applies to the "vehicle" part. It doesn't make sense to apply to the rest because not all of the preceding have doors (e.g., "tent"). By my reading, if a person enters someone's camping tent for the purpose of committing murder, that's also burglary under that statute.
Quote: SonuvabishNo, stealing from a vehicle is not burglary because it is not a dwelling, nor a similar structure. According to the statute, a locked car meets the dwelling requirement.
A door used to have to be locked and the lock broken to constitute burglary. That has changed in modern day. If you walk thru an open doorway, it is not burglary. If you push open a door, it is burglary. If the door is half-open, and you squirm by it without touching it, it is not burglary--but if you touch and it moves, it is burglary. Well, you have to satisfy the other requirements, but this is the 'Breaking' element.
Are you sure that this is the law in CA? The statute that ThatDonGuy posted doesn't say anything about breaking and entering, only entering. It does not mention the state of the doors or whether your entry was otherwise allowed. You just have to enter with the intent to commit a felony.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceAre you sure that this is the law in CA? The statute that ThatDonGuy posted doesn't say anything about breaking and entering, only entering. It does not mention the state of the doors or whether your entry was otherwise allowed. You just have to enter with the intent to commit a felony.
I can't say I am 100% they follow the exact definitions that I understand, but they would follow something similar. There has to be a breaking and entering requirement. Breaking means entering. Without breaking, the person wouldn't be inside. Entering means without permission. Having permission takes away the whole argument...without entering, any felony committed inside a building would potentially be a burglary. However, these two elements are closely linked and some jurisdictions combine them.
That statute that I read enumerated what qualifies as a dwelling. These are common, as different states set forth different structures that qualify as dwellings. You cannot read this as the jurisdiction's entire law on burglary. There is more.
It is possible they altered (or abrogated altogether) the breaking requirement to mean the exact same thing as entering in some circumstances (house) and to mean what breaking did at common-law (actually break the lock) in other circumstances (cars). Students are taught the middle-ground. Not using this term in the statute just means you need to look farther to confirm. However, in this case, this is irrelevant, because the issue for the cheating gambler is the entering element of burglary, not the breaking element. "Enter" has legal significance in a burglary statute.
Quote:Every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel, as defined in Section 21 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, floating home, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 18075.55 of the Health and Safety Code, railroad car, locked or sealed cargo container, whether or not mounted on a vehicle, trailer coach, as defined in Section 635 of the Vehicle Code, any house car, as defined in Section 362 of the Vehicle Code, inhabited camper, as defined in Section 243 of the Vehicle Code, vehicle as defined by the Vehicle Code, when the doors are locked, aircraft as defined by Section 21012 of the Public Utilities Code, or mine or any underground portion thereof, with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary.
There is nothing in there about breaking. Entering for the purpose of committing a crime is burglary.
Only cars seem to have the qualification the the doors be locked, and cargo containers have the qualification that they must be locked or sealed. Everything else need not be closed, or even have doors to be opened, apparently. According to this definition, if you walk into any building with the intention of committing a felony, you are guilty of burglary. Admittedly, that seems stupid, but this is CA after all.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI'm not sure if you saw what don wrote, but:
There is nothing in there about breaking. Entering for the purpose of committing a crime is burglary.
Only cars seem to have the qualification the the doors be locked, and cargo containers have the qualification that they must be locked or sealed. Everything else need not be closed, or even have doors to be opened, apparently. According to this definition, if you walk into any building with the intention of committing a felony, you are guilty of burglary. Admittedly, that seems stupid, but this is CA after all.
Breaking means entering. How can you get into a car that is locked without breaking? You cannot, even using a key is breaking. The lock implies breaking is required.
It is possible that the breaking element is abrogated for structures like houses in this jurisdiction, which is not a big deal at all, because breaking is only a technical requirement in any jurisdiction anyway. I would not be surprised if they do not require a breaking. Would you consider pushing a door, that is only 3/4 open, to a fully open position as breaking? I wouldn't, but that fulfills the element, where it exists. Entering is the important part, especially as it relates to the gambler.
CA is progressive, and tends to be ahead of other states in important legal changes. The breaking element is stupid, as applied to burglary of houses and similarly important buildings. If a state were to get rid of this requirement, CA would be the one to do it--and others would later follow. Imagine getting off on a burglar charge because you were smart enough to pay a kid to smash the window.
The same would be true for a casino, which explains the burglary charge.
http://www.shouselaw.com/burglary.html
Examples from that page:
Quote:Breaking into a house to steal jewelry or electronics.
Walking into someone's open garage to steal a bicycle.
Entering a department store with the intent to steal a jacket.
Entering a Bank of America branch with the intent to cash a check that you know is fraudulent.
Entering an office building with the intent of committing a felony assault.
Breaking a car window and stealing the radio.
So entering a casino with the intent to cheat by marking cards is burglary, assuming cheating by marking cards is a felony.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceMy point is, your earlier statements (ie, bank robbers are not burglars) seem to be incorrect in CA. They entered the bank with the intent of committing a felony; therefore they are guilty of burglary. The fact that the bank was open to the general public is irrelevant.
The same would be true for a casino, which explains the burglary charge.
They didn't "Enter". You are using enter in the layman sense. Entering requires a lack of permission or to do so unlawfully. In other words, they must be trespassers. That it is open to the public is very relevant. If breaking was an element of the crime, they very likely met the requirement by opening the doors. Entering is the element they fail to meet.
Reading what you have been writing, however, I think I realize what the prosecution is going to attempt to argue. They are using the vagueness of the statute to trump up the charges. Nothing in the statute specifies that the entrance must be trespassory, even though this has always been a universal requirement. I seriously doubt this tactic could succeed.
Quote: SonuvabishThey didn't "Enter". You are using enter in the layman sense. Entering requires a lack of permission or to do so unlawfully. In other words, they must be trespassers. That it is open to the public is very relevant. If breaking was an element of the crime, they very likely met the requirement by opening the doors. Entering is the element they fail to meet.
I have searched a lot and have been unable to find that definition of "enter" anywhere. Do you have a link that you could share?
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI have searched a lot and have been unable to find that definition of "enter" anywhere. Do you have a link that you could share?
http://koehlerlaw.net/assault-theft/burglary/
The first thing I googled
"The entry can be through force, or “breaking.” Alternatively, entry can be without the permission of the person who occupies the house" This is what I saw and decided to link it. You can't just enter somewhere, it's always trespassory. Don't be confused by the husband/wife...notice that even tho they can convict him, they still look for burglar tools and forced entry. If the gambler announced to casino security before he entered "I intend to cheat, and I have a gun"...then his presence may have been trespassory after all.
Quote: Sonuvabishhttp://koehlerlaw.net/assault-theft/burglary/
The first thing I googled
"The entry can be through force, or “breaking.” Alternatively, entry can be without the permission of the person who occupies the house" This is what I saw and decided to link it. You can't just enter somewhere, it's always trespassory. Don't be confused by the husband/wife...notice that even tho they can convict him, they still look for burglar tools and forced entry. If the gambler announced to casino security before he entered "I intend to cheat, and I have a gun"...then presence may have been trepassory after all.
I'm unconvinced.
I think that the husband/wife example shows that the entry need not be trespassory. Clearly someone going into their own home is not trespassory.
The part about looking for burglary tools is in a separate section, talking about how intent is determined in practice (ie, things that a jury can consider to determine intent), not talking about the definition of entry.
I don't see anything that specifically says that the definition of "entry" being used is different from the plain-english definition. The examples given on the other website (specifically about CA) seem to support that.
Then on knowing, how can anyone know what someone will do or know what will happen even if planned.
Does anyone know who will win the Derby tomorrow or do they just think they know who will win? Do the jockeys intend to win, or do they just want to win? I just can't see how anyone can be guilty of these thought crimes.
Quote: onenickelmiracleHaving intent or knowing the future seems impossible to be when the law is concerned. To be technical, maybe the person was thinking about lunch or undressing a waitress when they entered a place and how can anything really be proven even with a confession.
Then on knowing, how can anyone know what someone will do or know what will happen even if planned.
Does anyone know who will win the Derby tomorrow or do they just think they know who will win? Do the jockeys intend to win, or do they just want to win? I just can't see how anyone can be guilty of these thought crimes.
That pretty much sums it up.
AOC: Enter is only legally defined when used as 'breaking & entering", and it means: remain unlawfully, without permission, without authorization. You can easily look this up. I am sorry if I took the liberty to separate entering from the conjunctive phrase, and make it its own word--but because of changes in the law of burglary, this seemed appropriate. In statutory law, the trespassory element is also no longer always explicitly expressed, but instead of being absent like breaking sometimes is, it is thought of as part of entering.
In the husband/wife example, why do assume you she didn't kick him out of the house, and that he has a right to be there? No facts support your conclusion, you filled in the blanks. What kind of happy, functional family has a situation like that? The article says "he can be convicted" it doesn't say he probably will be. This is usually a domestic abuse type of thing, but under certain circumstances, it could be a burglary. Burglary is being somewhere you have no right to be, which is why you never hear of those bank burglars in ski masks!
Quote: SonuvabishThat pretty much sums it up.
AOC: Enter is only legally defined when used as 'breaking & entering", and it means: remain unlawfully, without permission, without authorization.
But in the CA statute it is not used as "breaking and entering". The statute simply says "entering". No "breaking" is mentioned or implied. It simply says that entering a building with the intention of committing a felony (or petty theft) is burglary.
It seems that CA has gone further than other states, and, rather than water down the "breaking" requirement to include something like pushing open a door that is already partially open, they have removed it entirely. There is no mention whatsoever of "breaking" in the burglary statute -- only of "entering". There is also no suggestion, either in the statute or in any of the resources that have been linked to here, that it means anything other than the plain English definition of "entering".
Indeed, this case is a perfect example. He was charged with burglary even though he was legally allowed to be in the casino.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceBut in the CA statute it is not used as "breaking and entering". The statute simply says "entering". No "breaking" is mentioned or implied. It simply says that entering a building with the intention of committing a felony (or petty theft) is burglary.
It seems that CA has gone further than other states, and, rather than water down the "breaking" requirement to include something like pushing open a door that is already partially open, they have removed it entirely. There is no mention whatsoever of "breaking" in the burglary statute -- only of "entering". There is also no suggestion, either in the statute or in any of the resources that have been linked to here, that it means anything other than the plain English definition of "entering".
Indeed, this case is a perfect example. He was charged with burglary even though he was legally allowed to be in the casino.
I understand that they may not have a breaking requirement. But this doesn't change the meaning of entering. Other, clearer statutes that lack the breaking element, clearly define entering the way I have described it, as a trespassory entrance.
As I said, some of what you wrote made it dawn on me the prosecution's stance. The statute is vague enough to allow them to charge burglary, without engaging in prosecutorial misconduct. But I think this is a trumped up charge trying to leverage a plea, that everyone knows will probably fail if it were tested. But surprises do happen. He's obviously a cheater. They're probably saying cop to it or you go to trial for burglary to boot, as opposed to the usual--well we will give you half the penalty if you just sign here and save us the cost of going further.
Further, under your definition, burglary is a lesser included offense of every premeditated felony committed indoors. This would make some ridiculous things like burglary (entering own home) as a lesser included offense of solicitation of an underage prostitute. Selling cocaine from your home, burglary. Shooting a rocket launcher at the neighbor's house. Burglary. So long as you intend to do these things before you get home.
That's beside the point, because the judge found enough evidence to hold Karas for trial on burglary for the facts in this particular case:
http://santee.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/gambler-suspected-of-cheating-barona-casino-will-stand-trial
If you're going to risk jail time, do it for a life-changing amount of money.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceWait -- all this for $8000?? What an idiot.
If you're going to risk jail time, do it for a life-changing amount of money.
I'm sure that is just the amount that they could prove. It's enough to make it a felony.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceWait -- all this for $8000?? What an idiot.
If you're going to risk jail time, do it for a life-changing amount of money.
The problem is to get that life changing money requires one to risk doing hard time.
Quote: treetopbuddyThe problem is to get that life changing money requires one to risk doing hard time.
He is risking doing hard time. The burglary charge has a 1-year max sentence. I'm not sure about the winning by fraudulent means. The cheating is just a misdemeanor.
Quote: MathExtremistI think there may be an unwritten exception for property that you own, but I'm not certain. If you walk into your own house with the intent of arson and insurance fraud, I doubt that'd be burglary. But if you drove into a gas station with the intent to light a match next to the pump, that probably would be burglary in California.
That's beside the point, because the judge found enough evidence to hold Karas for trial on burglary for the facts in this particular case:
http://santee.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/gambler-suspected-of-cheating-barona-casino-will-stand-trial
No. There used to an exception. This exception fell out of use when banks began holding significant stakes in property. There is an important case, that I cannot cite, where a man destroys his home for purposes of fraud, and had little fear of the consequences because it was his own property. He wasn't the sole owner of the property, merely the sole possessor, and was found to be a burglar. This has neither been directly overruled nor strictly followed, to my knowledge. Regardless, there is no exception stated in the statute, and that is what AOC is citing! I am just pointing out the logical outgrowth of his argument--utter ridiculousness.
It says he faces three years if convicted of all three charges. Obviously, this is not your garden variety burglary. This is some watered-down technical version that does not resemble common-law whatsoever, because burglary in general, is gravely serious, more so than robbery. Perhaps their penal code has a bunch of different degrees, and he fits into a lower rung...in which case, I would have been partially wrong. Or, perhaps it is trumped up. I can't say. All I can say was that I read you stated it already survived dismissal and was surprised, then clicked the link and saw he could serve 3 years, and was no longer surprised. But remember, prosecutors cannot bring charges if they don't believe in good faith that they can survive a well-drafted dismissal motion--it is illegal, so it is not that surprising.
In CA, it may be that minor forms of "burglary" are more like what most states call grand theft. If that is the case, they are just using a different name to describe theft. They may have a differentiation for procedural or strategic purposes.
Quote: SonuvabishNo. There used to an exception. This exception fell out of use when banks began holding significant stakes in property. There is an important case, that I cannot cite, where a man destroys his home for purposes of fraud, and had little fear of the consequences because it was his own property. He wasn't the sole owner of the property, merely the sole possessor, and was found to be a burglar. This has neither been directly overruled nor strictly followed, to my knowledge. Regardless, there is no exception stated in the statute, and that is what AOC is citing! I am just pointing out the logical outgrowth of his argument--utter ridiculousness.
It says he faces three years if convicted of all three charges. Obviously, this is not your garden variety burglary. This is some watered-down technical version that does not resemble common-law whatsoever, because burglary in general, is gravely serious, more so than robbery. Perhaps their penal code has a bunch of different degrees, and he fits into a lower rung...in which case, I would have been partially wrong. Or, perhaps it is trumped up. I can't say. All I can say was that I read you stated it already survived dismissal and was surprised, then clicked the link and saw he could serve 3 years, and was no longer surprised. But remember, prosecutors cannot bring charges if they don't believe in good faith that they can survive a well-drafted dismissal motion--it is illegal, so it is not that surprising.
I think that our disagreement mostly stems from the fact that you are talking about generic common law, and I'm talking about the CA burglary statute (which is what applies in this particular case).
In CA there are two classes of burglary. The one where you enter someone's home (defined more or less as you'd expect) carries penalties of 2-6 years. The one where you enter something else carries a max sentence of 1 year. It also counts as a strike wrt CA's 3-strikes law.
I'd assume that the other 2 years (of the 3-year max sentence) comes from the other charges. Cheating is just a misdemeanor (in CA! Not in NV!) but the other charge (winning by fraudulent means) is a felony. I am unable to find the CA statutes for either one (winning by fraudulent means or cheating) so I'm not sure how they are different (I have no idea how Don finds all this stuff, apparently I am not searching properly)
Overall, the max sentences seem pretty light, compared to what could have happened to him had he tried this nonsense in Nevada.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI think that our disagreement mostly stems from the fact that you are talking about generic common law, and I'm talking about the CA burglary statute (which is what applies in this particular case).
In CA there are two classes of burglary. The one where you enter someone's home (defined more or less as you'd expect) carries penalties of 2-6 years. The one where you enter something else carries a max sentence of 1 year. It also counts as a strike wrt CA's 3-strikes law.
I'd assume that the other 2 years (of the 3-year max sentence) comes from the other charges. Cheating is just a misdemeanor (in CA! Not in NV!) but the other charge (winning by fraudulent means) is a felony. I am unable to find the CA statutes for either one (winning by fraudulent means or cheating) so I'm not sure how they are different (I have no idea how Don finds all this stuff, apparently I am not searching properly)
Overall, the max sentences seem pretty light, compared to what could have happened to him had he tried this nonsense in Nevada.
Yes, that is probably where most of our reasoning diverges.
Upon closer examination, burglary laws in California are atypical. 2nd degree burglary is basically identical to grand theft, except it is harder to prove. Requisites for 1st degree burglary are watered-down compared to other states, and correspondingly, the charge carries a lighter sentence. It would not be unusual to see a statute for a crime resembling 3rd degree burglary, where the penalty is about the same as 1st degree in CA. And a 1st degree statute would carry severe penalties. I wonder if this is a result of the 3 strikes law, or if they have an as of yet unnamed crime that serves the same function. If it is the 3 strikes law, I am thinking it is a bad idea.
