P. v. Thompson CA3

Filed 6/26/13 P. v. Thompson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

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

THE PEOPLE, C071122

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62105846)

v.

SHARON LYNN THOMPSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Sharon Lynn Thompson guilty of second degree burglary and possession of a methamphetamine pipe. (Pen. Code, § 459; Health & Saf. Code, § 11364.) Defendant timely appeals from an order suspending imposition of sentence and granting probation. On appeal, defendant contends--and the People concede--that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the mistake-of-fact defense. We find any error harmless. Defendant also contends--and the People again concede--that the trial court violated the prohibition against ex post facto laws when it imposed a restitution fine of $240. We disagree with the parties, as we explain, and shall affirm.

1

FACTS On April 17, 2011, defendant entered a Nordstrom store in Roseville and returned jewelry she acquired without payment while in the store. She had a methamphetamine pipe in her purse. A store detective testified that after he received a call from a cashier about defendant’s effort to return merchandise, he began tracking defendant on security cameras, and the jury was shown a video exhibit depicting defendant’s movements. Defendant tried but failed to return perfume and earrings that Nordstrom does not sell. She then picked up two pairs of different earrings from a table, walked away, then picked up a third pair of earrings, and returned two of those pairs, receiving cash for them. Store security then stopped defendant, but she resisted and had to be handcuffed. She had $17.32 in her purse, which was returned to the store. She claimed she had entered the store with four pairs of earrings. Nordstrom’s policy “for over a hundred years” has been to accept returns without proof of purchase, to accommodate customers. A Roseville police officer testified defendant admitted to him that “she came to Nordstrom’s to take items and immediately return them for cash.” She said she knew Nordstrom’s policy was to accept returns without receipts, “so she would take items from the rack and go right to the register and try to return them for money.” She was cooperative until she learned she was going to jail, then began pleading to be released and claimed she had high blood pressure and that her arm might be broken. The officer took her to the hospital, where she also claimed she had been hit in the head, but she had no visible injuries. Defendant testified she had received the perfume and two pairs of earrings as gifts, and went to Nordstrom to exchange them because she thought that is where they came from. She first went to the perfume department, but was told she could not exchange the perfume because it lacked a sticker, and she was told to take the earrings to another department to determine if they came from Nordstrom. On her way, she found some