245 Cal. App. 4th 353
Cal. Ct. App. 4th2016Background
- In 2008 David Michael Root was convicted of multiple offenses including second-degree burglary for entering banks during business hours to cash forged checks under $950.
- In May 2015 Root petitioned under Prop. 47 (§ 1170.18) to recall sentences and reduce qualifying felonies to misdemeanors; the trial court granted relief for many counts but denied seven burglary counts as not being "shoplifting."
- The information alleged Root entered with intent to commit theft (theory: theft by false pretenses via forged checks), not solely forgery.
- Section 459.5 (added by Prop. 47) defines "shoplifting" as entering a commercial establishment during business hours with intent to commit larceny where value does not exceed $950.
- Central legal question: whether an intent to commit theft by false pretenses (as charged) satisfies the § 459.5 requirement of "intent to commit larceny," making the offenses eligible for misdemeanor resentencing under Prop. 47.
- The trial court denied relief for those counts; the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded with instructions to grant resentencing on the seven counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether entering a commercial establishment with intent to commit theft by false pretenses satisfies § 459.5's "intent to commit larceny" requirement | Root: § 490a requires "larceny" be read as "theft," so intent to commit theft (including false pretenses) meets § 459.5; banks are commercial establishments | People: § 459.5 requires intent to commit common-law larceny (not false pretenses); shoplifting meant only traditional retail merchandise theft | Court: "Larceny" in § 459.5 must be read as "theft" under § 490a; intent to commit theft by false pretenses qualifies as intent to commit larceny for § 459.5 and counts must be reduced and resentenced under Prop. 47 |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Dingle, 174 Cal.App.3d 21 (1985) (interpreting "larceny" in burglary context to include theft by false pretenses)
- People v. Nguyen, 40 Cal.App.4th 28 (1995) (holding burglary statute's reference to "larceny" includes theft by false pretenses; relying on § 490a)
- People v. Parson, 44 Cal.4th 332 (2008) (discussing scope of theft-related terms in burglary/related offenses)
- People v. Vargas, 243 Cal.App.4th 1416 (2016) (concluding intent to commit theft by false pretenses satisfies § 459.5's "intent to commit larceny")
- People v. Triplett, 244 Cal.App.4th 824 (2016) (holding § 459.5 is satisfied by intent to commit theft, not limited to common-law larceny)
- People v. Williams, 57 Cal.4th 776 (2013) (analyzing common-law "larceny" in robbery context; distinguished by court here)
- People v. Gonzales, 242 Cal.App.4th 35 (2015) (addressed similar issue; review granted by Supreme Court and thus not relied on here)
- People v. Rivera, 233 Cal.App.4th 1085 (2015) (statutory construction principles for voter initiatives and use of prior judicial interpretations)