People v. Colbert, 242 Cal. Rptr. 3d 665

In 1996–97 Colbert and an accomplice entered convenience stores during business hours; one distracted the clerk while the other entered private back offices and stole cash. Colbert was convicted of four counts of second-degree burglary; one count involved over $950.
Proposition 47 (2014) created misdemeanor shoplifting (Pen. Code §459.5): entering a commercial establishment during regular business hours with intent to commit larceny where the value taken or intended does not exceed $950; “Any other entry into a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny is burglary.”
Proposition 47 also authorized resentencing/redesignation of prior felonies as misdemeanors when the conduct would now be a misdemeanor (Pen. Code §1170.18).
Colbert petitioned to redesignate two burglary convictions as misdemeanors under §1170.18; the trial court denied relief, finding his offenses involved entry into private office areas not open to the public and one conviction exceeded $950.
The Court of Appeal affirmed (relying on the private-area rationale); a dissent argued the plain text of §459.5 covers the entire commercial establishment, including interior rooms. The Supreme Court granted review to resolve the split with People v. Hallam.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether entering a store during business hours but then entering an interior room objectively off-limits to the public with intent to steal is shoplifting or burglary	Such intrusions exceed the scope of the store’s public invitation and remain burglary	§459.5’s plain text covers entry into a “commercial establishment” so entering the store with intent to steal (even if theft occurs in a back office) is shoplifting	Entry into an interior room objectively identifiable as off-limits with intent to steal is burglary, not shoplifting
Whether Colbert’s eligible burglary convictions must be redesignated under §1170.18	The People argued the back-office entries are ineligible for redesignation because they are burglaries under §459.5’s scope exception	Colbert argued the initial entry into the commercial establishment completed the shoplifting offense and thus convictions qualify for redesignation (except the >$950 count)	Colbert is not entitled to redesignation for the back-office burglaries; only the >$950 count is ineligible on value grounds but others fail on the off-limits-room ground

People v. Gonzales, 2 Cal.5th 858 (case interpreting §459.5’s scope for non-larceny thefts)
People v. Barry, 94 Cal. 481 (historic rule that entry with felonious intent is without invitation and may be burglary)
People v. Young, 65 Cal. 225 (entry from public area into a private office with intent to steal can constitute burglary)
People v. Sparks, 28 Cal.4th 71 (burglary may be based on entry into interior room within a structure)
People v. Garcia, 62 Cal.4th 1116 (test for multiple burglary convictions when subsequently entered room provides separate expectation of protection)
People v. Hallam, 3 Cal.App.5th 905 (Court of Appeal holding back-office theft could be shoplifting; disapproved insofar as inconsistent with this opinion)