People v. Huerta
3 Cal. App. 5th 539
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2009 Huerta pled guilty to one count of second-degree commercial burglary for taking eight bottles of perfume from Sears; sentence 16 months in state prison.
- Total value of perfume in Huerta’s bag was $463; a companion had four bottles worth $174.50.
- In 2014 Proposition 47 (Pen. Code, § 1170.18) reclassified certain thefts under $950 as misdemeanors and allowed resentencing/redesignation of prior convictions.
- In 2015 Huerta petitioned under § 1170.18 to redesignate her burglary conviction as misdemeanor shoplifting (§ 459.5), checking the form box that the property value did not exceed $950; she submitted no additional documents.
- At a hearing the People did not contest value but argued Huerta’s burglary was predicated on an uncharged conspiracy with an accomplice, which (they argued) would keep the offense as a felony. The trial court granted the petition; People appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by reaching merits when petitioner submitted no evidence with her § 1170.18 petition | Huerta failed to meet initial burden to show eligibility because she did not attach supporting evidence; petition should be summarily denied | Trial court may consider court records, permit amendment, and set a hearing; prosecution’s silence at hearing forfeited objection | No error; court acted within discretion to consider records, allow hearing, and petitioner could cure by amendment |
| Whether burglary predicated on conspiracy to commit theft makes petitioner ineligible for redesignation under Prop 47 | If Huerta entered with intent to conspire, burglary could be predicated on felony conspiracy, so not eligible for misdemeanor redesignation | Conspiracy to commit larceny necessarily implies intent to commit larceny; § 459.5 requires shoplifting be charged instead of burglary for same property | No error; conspiracy to commit larceny does not bar redesignation—Huerta was eligible and court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Abarca, 2 Cal.App.5th 475 (2016) (section 1170.18 does not rigidly limit trial court discretion to dismiss petitions lacking appended evidence)
- People v. Gerold, 174 Cal.App.4th 781 (2009) (prosecutor’s silence at hearing may forfeit objection to facts asserted by defense)
- Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc., 222 Cal.App.3d 1371 (1990) (liberal allowance of pleading amendment)
- Kong v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency, 108 Cal.App.4th 1028 (2002) (leave to amend required when there is reasonable possibility amendment cures defects)
- People v. Duvall, 9 Cal.4th 464 (1995) (liberal amendment principles apply in criminal habeas context)