People v. Pak
3 Cal. App. 5th 1111
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Jane Pak pleaded nolo contendere to multiple counts including two commercial burglaries for entering a pawn shop with stolen goods and pawning them.
- She served her sentence and filed a Proposition 47 (§ 1170.18(f)) application to designate certain felony convictions as misdemeanors, asserting the value taken was ≤ $950.
- The trial court reduced one burglary (projector) to a misdemeanor but denied the pawn-shop burglary involving a camcorder, watch, and earrings, reasoning the value of the stolen goods pawned (≈ > $5,000) controlled.
- The parties agreed Pak received less money from the pawnshop than the stolen items’ total value; defense counsel asserted pawn slips appeared to show amounts < $950 but did not introduce them into evidence.
- The Court of Appeal held that when stolen goods are pawned, the relevant § 459.5 value is the value of the property actually taken (money received), not the value of the pawned goods — but affirmed because Pak failed to carry her burden of proving she received ≤ $950.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which value governs § 459.5 when stolen goods are pawned: value of goods pawned or value of property obtained from pawnshop? | Value of goods pawned controls; intent to take high-value items shows burglary (trial court/People position). | Value of property actually taken (money from pawnshop) controls; if ≤ $950, shoplifting applies. | The appellate court held the relevant value is the amount actually taken from the pawnshop (money received), but affirmed denial because defendant failed to prove she received ≤ $950. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Perkins, 244 Cal.App.4th 129 (interpretation of § 459.5 and statutory construction principles)
- People v. Stylz, 2 Cal.App.5th 530 (elements of shoplifting under Prop. 47)
- People v. Rivera, 233 Cal.App.4th 1085 (overview of Proposition 47 effects)
- In re Zeth S., 31 Cal.4th 396 (unsworn statements by counsel are not evidence)
- People v. Davis, 19 Cal.4th 301 (financial injury to pawnshops measured by amount paid or loaned)
- People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (appellate counsel independent review procedure)