People v. Jimenez, 9 Cal.5th 53

In June 2016 Miguel Angel Jimenez twice entered a check‑cashing business and cashed two checks containing OuterWall, Inc.’s account information without authorization. He was convicted of two felonies under Penal Code §530.5(a) (unauthorized use of personal identifying information).
Jimenez moved to reclassify the felonies under Proposition 47 as misdemeanors: shoplifting (§459.5) or petty theft (§490.2). The trial court granted relief; the Court of Appeal affirmed relying on People v. Gonzales.
The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether a conviction under §530.5(a) can be reduced under Prop 47 to misdemeanor shoplifting or petty theft.
Central statutory question: does §530.5(a) constitute a "theft" (or burglary/theft of the same property) offense within the meaning of Prop 47’s §459.5(b) and §490.2?
The Court held §530.5(a) is a use‑based offense that criminalizes unlawful use of another’s identifying information (protecting privacy and identity victims), not a theft offense based on taking or value, and therefore is ineligible for reclassification under §459.5 or §490.2.
Judgment: Court of Appeal reversed; case remanded for sentencing consistent with the opinion; People v. Brayton (conflicting authority) disapproved.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a §530.5(a) felony can be reduced to misdemeanor shoplifting under Prop 47 (§459.5).	The prosecution argued that when the conduct matches Gonzales (entering to cash stolen checks under $950) §459.5(b) requires charging shoplifting instead of identity theft.	Jimenez argued his conduct constituted shoplifting and §459.5(b) bars charging anything but shoplifting for that conduct.	No. §530.5(a) is not a "theft" or burglary offense; §459.5(b) preclusion applies only to burglary/theft charges, so §530.5 convictions are not convertible to §459.5 shoplifting.
Whether a §530.5(a) felony can be reduced to petty theft under §490.2.	People contended §530.5 is not a theft offense and thus outside §490.2.	Jimenez argued the misuse resulted in obtaining money/property under $950 so petty theft applies.	No. §530.5 criminalizes unlawful use of identifying information, not obtaining property by theft; §490.2 does not apply.
Whether reclassification analysis looks to defendant’s conduct or the statutory offense charged.	People relied on Martinez/Lara: focus is on the offense as charged, not merely conduct.	Jimenez urged a conduct‑based approach (similar facts to Gonzales should trigger reduction).	Held: The operative inquiry is whether the statute of conviction was altered by Prop 47; similarity of conduct alone is insufficient.

People v. Gonzales, 2 Cal.5th 858 (explaining burglary conviction based on entering to cash stolen checks could be reduced to shoplifting where proof overlapped)
People v. Romanowski, 2 Cal.5th 903 (holding theft of access‑card information fit within Prop 47 petty‑theft scheme)
People v. Page, 3 Cal.5th 1175 (interpreting when a Vehicle Code offense has a theft variant eligible for §490.2 relief)
People v. Martinez, 4 Cal.5th 647 (establishing that the relevant question is whether the offense of conviction was altered by Prop 47)
People v. Lara, 6 Cal.5th 1128 (defendants not yet sentenced as of Prop 47’s effective date are entitled to initial sentencing under the amended penalties)
People v. Colbert, 6 Cal.5th 596 (discussing rationale distinguishing shoplifting from burglary and the reduced culpability in invited commercial settings)