People v. Gonzales
216 Cal. Rptr. 3d 285
| Cal. | 2017Background
- In Dec. 2013 Giovanni Gonzales stole his grandmother’s checkbook and on two occasions entered a bank during business hours and cashed checks made out to him for $125 each without her authorization.
- He was charged with second-degree burglary (felony) and forgery; pled to burglary and was placed on probation; later sought recall/resentencing under Prop. 47 (§ 1170.18).
- Prop. 47 (2014) added Penal Code § 459.5 (shoplifting): entering a commercial establishment during business hours with intent to commit larceny where value ≤ $950; such acts must be charged as shoplifting and not also as burglary or theft of the same property.
- The prosecution argued cashing stolen checks was theft by false pretenses (not larceny) and thus not covered by § 459.5; the defense argued § 459.5 should be read to incorporate the consolidated concept of “theft” (per § 490a) so it includes non-larcenous thefts.
- The Supreme Court considered (1) whether “larceny” in § 459.5 imports the broader consolidated concept of “theft” under § 490a and related precedents, and (2) whether Gonzales is eligible for misdemeanor resentencing under § 1170.18.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does “larceny” in §459.5 mean only common-law larceny or the consolidated “theft” that includes false pretenses/embezzlement (via §490a)? | "Larceny" should be read in its ordinary (common) sense; Prop. 47 intended shoplifting to cover classic shoplifting of merchandise. | "Larceny" in §459.5 should be read per §490a as equivalent to "theft," thus including false pretenses and other theft forms. | Court holds "larceny" in §459.5 incorporates the §490a substitution — it means theft (including non-larcenous theft). |
| Did the electorate’s ballot materials or purpose indicate an intent to limit §459.5 to tangible retail merchandise only? | Voter materials and the label "shoplifting" show intent to limit the crime to ordinary shoplifting of merchandise. | The statutory text, reference to burglary, §490a, and Prop. 47’s emphasis on value support a broader reading tied to theft generally. | Court rejects narrow colloquial reading; ballot materials emphasize value threshold and misdemeanor treatment, supporting the broader theft reading. |
| If §459.5 applies, does §459.5(b) bar charging burglary for the same property where alternative intent was to commit identity theft (cashing stolen check)? | Even if shoplifting applies, the prosecution could still rely on an alternative intent (e.g., identity theft) to support burglary, so §1170.18 relief might be unavailable. | §459.5(b) mandates shoplifting be charged and forbids charging burglary or theft of the same property; thus it would preclude a burglary charge based on the same property/act. | Court holds §459.5(b) precludes charging burglary/theft of the same property and thus defendant may seek resentencing under §1170.18. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Williams, 57 Cal.4th 776 (2013) (robbery analysis distinguishing larceny from other thefts and limiting §490a’s effect on robbery)
- People v. Vidana, 1 Cal.5th 632 (2016) (§490a creates single crime of theft but consolidation did not change substantive elements; warns literal substitution can be awkward)
- People v. Myers, 206 Cal. 480 (1929) (interpreting §490a as nomenclature change and permitting charging as "theft")
- People v. Nguyen, 40 Cal.App.4th 28 (1995) (Court of Appeal holding intent to commit theft by false pretenses can support burglary)
- People v. Dingle, 174 Cal.App.3d 21 (1985) (holding intent to commit non-larceny theft can support burglary)
- People v. Parson, 44 Cal.4th 332 (2008) (affirming that intent to defraud can support burglary-related liability)