People v. Garrett, 203 Cal. Rptr. 3d 369

In Feb. 2014 Garrett and an accomplice entered a QuikStop; the accomplice approached the cashier with gift cards valued at about $50 while police closed in. A stolen credit card in a discarded wallet was found. Garrett had tools and heroin in the car but pleaded no contest to commercial burglary (Pen. Code § 459) in June 2014.
The information alleged Garrett entered the store “with the intent to commit larceny and any felony.” Other counts (including misdemeanor identity theft) were dismissed in the plea deal.
After Proposition 47 (Nov. 2014) Garrett petitioned under § 1170.18 for resentencing, arguing his conduct now falls under the new misdemeanor shoplifting provision (Pen. Code § 459.5) because the intended property value was under $950.
The trial court denied the petition, concluding Garrett intended to commit felony identity theft (Pen. Code § 530.5) by using a stolen credit card and thus was ineligible for resentencing.
The Court of Appeal reversed: it held using a stolen credit card to purchase ≤ $950 in merchandise is “theft” (thus “larceny” for § 459.5 via § 490a) and therefore constitutes shoplifting under § 459.5, making Garrett eligible for resentencing; remanded to determine public-safety risk under § 1170.18(b).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether entering a commercial establishment intending to use a stolen credit card to buy ≤ $950 of goods is "shoplifting" under Pen. Code § 459.5	The Attorney General/trial court: the conduct was intended felony identity theft (§ 530.5), not larceny, so § 459.5 does not apply and Garrett is ineligible for Prop 47 relief	Garrett: using a stolen credit card to acquire ≤ $950 in goods is theft (larceny for § 459.5 purposes) and thus shoplifting, making him eligible for resentencing	Court: The conduct is theft by false pretenses and—under § 490a and § 484—constitutes "larceny" for § 459.5. Garrett is eligible for resentencing; remand to assess dangerousness under § 1170.18(b).
Whether Garrett met his burden to show the value of the intended theft was ≤ $950	Prosecution: insufficient proof he intended only the $50 in gift cards; could have intended to steal other property over $950	Garrett: counsel filed a sworn declaration and prosecution conceded the gift cards were worth ~$50; no evidence supporting a >$950 intent	Court: The record (sworn declaration and prosecution concession; court assumed $50 for ruling) suffices to show value ≤ $950 for § 459.5 eligibility.

People v. Williams, 57 Cal.4th 776 (2013) (distinguishes larceny from theft by false pretenses in robbery context; discusses common-law background)
People v. Rizo, 22 Cal.4th 681 (2000) (apply statutory-construction rules when construing voter initiatives)
Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (2011) (text is first indicator of statutory intent; ordinary meaning governs interpretation)