People v. Valencia

California Court of Appeal Mar 16, 2016 No. C079394Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant who committed theft by false pretenses in a commercial establishment is eligible for resentencing under Proposition 47 because the statutory definition of shoplifting encompasses all forms of theft under $950.

Issues

Whether a conviction for second degree burglary involving the use of counterfeit bills to purchase goods is eligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“section 459.5 applies to any theft in a commercial establishment during regular business hours; whether the theft would be considered shoplifting as that term is commonly understood is irrelevant to the statute’s application.”

Filed 3/16/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Tehama) ----

THE PEOPLE, C079394

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. NCR91525)

MANUEL THOMAS VALENCIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tehama County, C. Todd Bottke, Judge. Reversed.

William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel B. Bernstein and Peter H. Smith, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Manuel Thomas Valencia appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18.1 He contends the court erred in finding his conviction for second degree burglary (§ 459) was ineligible for resentencing. We agree. Since defendant’s criminal conduct in purchasing a prepaid phone with counterfeit bills could not be prosecuted as a burglary had Proposition 47 (Prop. 47, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2014)) been in effect, he is eligible for relief under section 1170.18. We shall therefore reverse the trial court’s order and remand for additional proceedings on defendant’s petition. BACKGROUND On June 28, 2014, defendant went into an AT&T store and purchased a prepaid phone for $249.74 with counterfeit $50 bills. When defendant was later contacted by the employee who sold him the phone, he admitted that the bills he tendered were counterfeit. Defendant was charged with second degree burglary and forgery (§§ 459, 470, subd. (d)) along with two prior prison term allegations (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). He pleaded guilty to second degree burglary and was sentenced to an eight-month county prison term, to be served consecutively to a nine-year term imposed in unrelated cases. Defendant subsequently filed a section 1170.18 petition for resentencing, seeking a reduction of the second degree burglary conviction to a misdemeanor. The trial court denied the petition, finding defendant was not eligible for relief because his criminal activity did not constitute shoplifting.

People v. Valencia

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C079394

MANUEL THOMAS VALENCIA,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief