People v. Acosta
242 Cal. App. 4th 521
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Defendant Jose Miguel Robles Acosta was convicted in 2012 of attempted second degree burglary of a motor vehicle (Pen. Code, §§ 664/459); case record lacks details of original disposition.
- Proposition 47 (Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, Nov. 2014) reclassified certain drug and property offenses as misdemeanors and added Penal Code § 459.5 (shoplifting) and § 490.2 (petty theft threshold $950), among others.
- In Nov. 2014 Acosta petitioned under § 1170.18 (Prop. 47) to reduce his attempted vehicle burglary felony to a misdemeanor, asserting the property value involved was under $950.
- The People opposed, arguing attempted car burglary is not one of the enumerated offenses in Prop. 47 and burglary is not simply theft.
- The superior court denied the petition; the Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding Prop. 47’s list controls and attempted car burglary is not covered; equal protection and statutory construction challenges failed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attempted burglary of a motor vehicle is reclassified as a misdemeanor under Prop. 47 (§ 1170.18) | Prop. 47 should be read to include theft-related burglaries; burglary involves larceny so § 490.2 applies | Attempted car burglary is not among the offenses enumerated in § 1170.18 and burglary can occur without a taking | Denied: statutory text of § 1170.18 enumerates covered offenses and does not include burglary or attempted burglary of a vehicle |
| Whether burglary of a vehicle is a form of theft subject to § 490.2 petty-theft reclassification | Burglary of a vehicle entails larceny and thus falls within § 490.2’s petty-theft threshold | Burglary’s elements focus on unlawful entry with intent; no actual taking is required, so it is distinct from theft | Denied: burglary can be committed without a taking; statute does not assimilate burglary into § 490.2 |
| Whether excluding attempted car burglary from Prop. 47 violates equal protection | Treating Acosta more harshly than a vehicle thief with <$950 loss is arbitrary and violates equal protection | Legislature/voters may rationally choose to apply misdemeanor relief to some nonviolent offenses but not all; disparate treatment has rational basis | Denied: rational basis review applies and voters could rationally limit amendments to specific offenses |
| Whether the liberal-construction intent of Prop. 47 requires extending relief beyond listed offenses | Liberal-construction intent favors broad resentencing of nonviolent offenders, so relief should extend | Intent and plain language control; liberal construction does not override explicit enumeration | Denied: liberal-construction clause does not permit expansion beyond the initiative’s explicit terms |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Park, 56 Cal.4th 782 (discusses wobblers and classification)
- Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 969 (statutory interpretation of initiative measures)
- People v. Magallanes, 173 Cal.App.4th 529 (burglary can be committed without an actual taking)
- People v. Wilkinson, 33 Cal.4th 821 (rational-basis standard for sentencing disparities)
- Johnson v. Department of Justice, 60 Cal.4th 871 (legislature latitude in defining criminal consequences)
- People v. Barrett, 54 Cal.4th 1081 (permitting incremental legislative changes without implicating equal protection)
- McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184 (supporting legislative discretion in classification distinctions)