People v. J.L.
242 Cal. App. 4th 1108
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- In May 2014, minor J.L. and another student used improvised lock-picking tools and stole a classmate’s cell phone from a high‑school locker; J.L. admitted the theft and showed where the phone was placed.
- The district attorney filed a Welf. & Inst. Code § 602 petition charging burglary (Pen. Code § 459) among other counts; J.L. admitted the burglary count and was adjudicated a felony and placed on probation.
- Voters passed Proposition 47 (Nov. 2014), creating Penal Code § 459.5, defining misdemeanor shoplifting as entering a “commercial establishment” during business hours with intent to steal property valued at $950 or less and providing resentencing relief under § 1170.18.
- In Jan. 2015 J.L. petitioned under § 1170.18 to recall his felony adjudication and have the burglary reclassified as misdemeanor shoplifting under § 459.5, arguing a public high school qualifies as a “commercial establishment.”
- The juvenile court denied the petition, concluding a school is not a commercial establishment as used in § 459.5; J.L. appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether theft from a public school locker is eligible for reclassification to misdemeanor shoplifting under § 459.5 (i.e., whether a public high school is a “commercial establishment”). | The People (Respondent) argued the ordinary meaning of “commercial establishment” excludes public schools, so § 459.5 is inapplicable. | J.L. argued a school shares traits of a commercial establishment (regular hours, public access, businesslike functions) and thus his locker theft should qualify as shoplifting under § 459.5. | The court held a public high school is not a “commercial establishment” under § 459.5; the burglary conviction is ineligible for reclassification and the denial of the recall petition is affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Briceno, 34 Cal.4th 451 (statutory construction of voter initiatives; give words their ordinary meaning)
- People v. Cochran, 28 Cal.4th 396 (use of dictionary definition of “commerce” in statutory interpretation)
- People v. Contreras, 237 Cal.App.4th 868 (discussing Prop. 47 reclassification of theft offenses)
- Alejandro N. v. Superior Court, 238 Cal.App.4th 1209 (juvenile access to Prop. 47 resentencing mechanisms)