People v. Bunyard
9 Cal. App. 5th 1237
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2012 Bunyard was arrested at a laundromat after attempting to pry open a coin-operated soap dispenser; he admitted trying to get money from the machine. He pleaded no contest to second degree burglary (§ 459) and was sentenced to prison.
- Proposition 47 (effective Nov. 5, 2014) enacted Penal Code § 459.5, reclassifying certain entries into commercial establishments with intent to commit larceny during regular business hours as misdemeanor shoplifting where the value is ≤ $950, and created § 1170.18 petitions for resentencing.
- Bunyard petitioned under § 1170.18 to recall his felony sentence and be resentenced under § 459.5, asserting his intended taking was under $950 and the laundromat was open.
- The prosecutor argued § 459.5 should be read to cover only theft of merchandise openly displayed for sale (classic shoplifting), excluding forcible entry into coin boxes or theft of non-merchandise money.
- The trial court denied the petition, finding the commonsense meaning of “shoplifting” did not encompass prying open coin boxes; Bunyard appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attempted taking of coins from a coin-operated machine during business hours qualifies as "shoplifting" under § 459.5 | § 459.5 refers to common understanding of shoplifting (theft of merchandise openly displayed), so coin-box prying is not covered | § 459.5 uses the term "larceny" and covers entry with intent to steal property (including money) ≤ $950 during business hours in a commercial establishment | The Court held Bunyard’s conduct fits § 459.5: larceny includes money and § 459.5’s text and purpose encompass this conduct, so he is eligible for resentencing under § 1170.18(a). |
| Whether the trial court properly denied resentencing without addressing dangerousness under § 1170.18(b)–(e) | The People implicitly argue resentencing might be inappropriate given offense characteristics | Bunyard asked for immediate resentencing, asserting he poses no unreasonable risk | The Court held eligibility was established and remanded for the trial court to exercise discretion under § 1170.18(b)–(e) to determine if resentencing would pose an unreasonable risk to public safety. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Vidana, 1 Cal.5th 632 (discusses historical elements of larceny and statutory theft)
- People v. Williams, 57 Cal.4th 776 (defines statutory theft and common-law roots)
- People v. Park, 56 Cal.4th 782 (principles for interpreting voter initiatives)
- Robert L. v. Superior Court, 30 Cal.4th 894 (method for construing initiative language and voter intent)
- People v. Contreras, 237 Cal.App.4th 868 (procedure and standards for § 1170.18 eligibility determinations)
- People v. Martin, 6 Cal.App.5th 666 (analysis of § 459.5’s use of "larceny" and its scope)