People v. Hallam
3 Cal. App. 5th 905
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In May 2011, Nicholas Hallam entered a Computers NLA store during business hours, used the employee restroom with permission, left, reentered the building via a back door, returned to the employee restroom and stole an air compressor worth $350.
- Hallam pleaded no contest to second degree burglary in 2011 and was sentenced to two years in state prison.
- After Proposition 47 passed, Hallam petitioned under Penal Code § 1170.18 to have his felony burglary conviction redesignated as misdemeanor shoplifting (Pen. Code § 459.5), arguing the facts satisfy the shoplifting definition.
- The trial court denied relief, reasoning shoplifting requires entry into an area of a commercial establishment open to the public and where merchandise is sold; because Hallam entered via a back entrance and stole from an employee area, the court treated the offense as burglary.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the plain language of § 459.5 covers entry into any area of a commercial establishment while it is open during regular business hours with intent to commit larceny, even if the theft occurs in an employee-only area absent objectively heightened privacy/security.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether entering an employee-only restroom in a commercial store during business hours to commit larceny falls within § 459.5 shoplifting | AG: Employee-only areas are not part of a "commercial establishment" for shoplifting; such entries remain burglary | Hallam: The store as a whole was open; § 459.5 applies regardless of which interior area the defendant entered | Reversed: Section 459.5 applies where the commercial establishment was open during business hours and the theft was ≤ $950, and employee-only areas are included unless the area has a separate, objectively reasonable expectation of privacy/security |
| Whether petitioner proved the entry occurred during regular business hours | AG: Hallam failed to prove the store was open during business hours | Hallam: Record (stipulated factual basis, counsel’s representations, arrest time) shows store was open | Held: Substantial evidence supports that the store was open during business hours |
| Whether court may add an element requiring theft to occur in a public sales area | AG: "Commonsense" reading excludes non-sales rooms from shoplifting | Hallam: Statute’s plain text contains no such limitation | Held: Court may not add a limitation; statutory text controls and no public-sales-area limitation exists |
| Whether employee-area theft can be treated as burglary when area lacks heightened privacy/security | AG: Entry into a room to steal can be burglary | Hallam: Garcia controls; absent evidence of separate expectation of privacy, interior room is part of establishment for § 459.5 | Held: Following People v. Garcia, an interior room without objective indicia of separate privacy/security is not a distinct structure; shoplifting applies |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Garcia, 62 Cal.4th 1116 (Cal. 2016) (interior room constitutes separate burglary only if it shows objective indicia of distinct expectation of privacy/security)
- In re J.L., 242 Cal.App.4th 1108 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (interpreting "commercial establishment" in context of public schools)
- People v. Hoffman, 241 Cal.App.4th 1304 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (§ 1170.18 petition/resentencing procedure under Proposition 47)
- People v. Park, 56 Cal.4th 782 (Cal. 2013) (rules for interpreting voter-enacted statutes)