People v. Sloat

California Court of Appeal Apr 10, 2017 No. B270080APublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant convicted of felony petty theft with a prior is eligible for misdemeanor designation under Penal Code section 1170.18, subdivision (f), regardless of whether the theft occurred in an open commercial business.

Issues

Whether a conviction for felony petty theft with a prior is eligible for reduction to a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 1170.18, subdivision (f).
Whether the eligibility requirements for shoplifting under section 459.5 apply to a petition to reduce a petty theft conviction under section 490.2.

Disposition. Reversed and remanded.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“[D]efendant was not seeking to have his . . . conviction reduced to misdemeanor shoplifting. Rather, he sought reduction of his felony petty theft with priors conviction to misdemeanor petty theft.”

“Unlike shoplifting (§ 459.5[, subd. (a)]), petty theft (§ 490.2[, subd. (a)]) does not require that a defendant enter a commercial establishment during regular business hours.”

Filed 4/10/17 (reposted to correct file date) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B270080

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA057527) v.

CHRISTOPHER JAMES SLOAT,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Salvatore T. Sirna, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Tyrone A. Sandoval, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Mary Sanchez and Analee J. Brodie, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant, Christopher James Sloat, filed a Penal Code1 section 1170.18, subdivision (f) petition. Defendant sought to have his 2002 felony petty theft with a prior conviction (former § 666, Stats. 2000, ch. 135, § 134, p. 1991)) designated a misdemeanor. At a hearing defendant did not attend and where he was not represented by counsel, the trial court denied the petition. The trial court impliedly agreed with the prosecutor that defendant was ineligible because the theft was not from an “open commercial business.” This was an apparent reference to section 459.5, subdivision (a), which governs the crime of shoplifting. Defendant argues, and the Attorney General concedes, defendant is eligible to have his conviction under former section 666 reduced to a misdemeanor. The Attorney General states: “[D]efendant was not seeking to have his . . . conviction reduced to misdemeanor shoplifting. Rather, he sought reduction of his felony petty theft with priors conviction to misdemeanor petty theft. . . . Unlike shoplifting (§ 459.5[, subd. (a)]), petty theft (§ 490.2[, subd. (a)]) does not require that a defendant enter a commercial establishment during regular business hours.” We agree with the Attorney General’s analysis.

1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

People v. Sloat

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B270080

CHRISTOPHER JAMES SLOAT,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

KRIEGLER, J.

BAKER, J.

AI Brief