People v. Martin, 211 Cal. Rptr. 3d 559

In 2009 Martin entered a Smart & Final twice and purchased merchandise using two forged checks tied to a company payroll account; total per transaction under $950.
He was convicted of identity theft, check forgery, and two counts of second-degree commercial burglary (entering a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny).
Martin petitioned under Penal Code § 1170.18 (Proposition 47) to have his burglary convictions recalled or redesignated as misdemeanors under newly enacted § 459.5 (shoplifting), which applies to entries into commercial establishments with intent to commit larceny where the value is ≤ $950.
The trial court denied relief, finding the offense involved obtaining title by forged checks (theft by false pretenses), not larceny, making him ineligible for Proposition 47 relief.
The Court of Appeal affirmed: § 459.5 uses the historical term "larceny," which requires trespassory taking/asportation; obtaining title by false pretenses (forged checks) is not larceny and thus not shoplifting under § 459.5.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 459.5's reference to "larceny" includes all forms of theft (so Martin's burglary would be shoplifting under Prop 47)	People: "larceny" retains its historical meaning (trespassory taking/asportation); obtaining title by forged check is not larceny, so § 459.5 does not apply	Martin: Proposition 47 and § 490a conversion of "larceny" to "theft" mean § 459.5 covers thefts by false pretenses (forged checks); his conduct was effectively shoplifting	Court: "larceny" in § 459.5 should be read in its historical, narrower sense; Martin committed theft by false pretenses, not larceny, so he is ineligible for § 1170.18 relief

People v. Vidana, 1 Cal.5th 632 (explaining historical distinctions among larceny, embezzlement, and false pretenses after consolidation of theft statutes)
People v. Williams, 57 Cal.4th 776 (discussing larceny elements and theft-by-false-pretenses distinction)
People v. Park, 56 Cal.4th 782 (principles for interpreting voter initiatives)
People v. Morales, 63 Cal.4th 399 (context on Proposition 47 and its scope)
People v. Arroyo, 62 Cal.4th 589 (statutory construction principles for initiatives)
People v. Licas, 41 Cal.4th 362 (omission in related statutes can indicate differing legislative intent)
People v. Lawrence, 24 Cal.4th 219 (examples of shoplifting characterized as larceny in pre-Prop 47 case law)
People v. Myers, 206 Cal. 480 (historic discussion of § 490a nomenclature changes)
People v. Nor Woods, 37 Cal.2d 584 (distinguishing larceny by trick from obtaining title by false pretenses)