Background - James Roth pleaded no contest to second-degree burglary (Pen. Code § 459) for entering a private storage locker and stealing tools; court imposed a suspended nine-year felony term with probation and drug treatment. - While a probation violation remained pending, Roth petitioned under Prop. 47 (§ 1170.18) to recall his felony sentence and be resentenced as a misdemeanor (shoplifting § 459.5). - At the Prop. 47 hearing the prosecutor (incorrectly) agreed Roth qualified; the trial court granted resentencing, converted the felony to a misdemeanor, and placed Roth on summary probation. - The court later issued an order to show cause, concluded the offense (burglary of a privately leased, locked storage locker) did not meet § 459.5’s "commercial establishment"/shoplifting definition, and vacated the misdemeanor as unauthorized, reinstating the felony. - After reinstatement the trial court completed the probation-violation proceedings, found Roth had violated probation (aiding/abetting/consorting with a person possessing narcotics for sale), and executed the felony term (corrected nunc pro tunc to the proper six-year aggregate). - Roth appealed both the reinstatement order (raising double jeopardy/authorization arguments) and the probation revocation (appellate counsel invoked Wende review); the Court of Appeal affirmed both orders. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Roth) | Held | |---|---:|---|---| | Whether the trial court properly vacated the misdemeanor Prop. 47 resentencing and reinstated the prior felony sentence (or whether that change violated double jeopardy) | The misdemeanor was unauthorized because Roth’s offense (entry into a privately leased storage locker) does not meet § 459.5’s shoplifting definition; the court may correct an unauthorized sentence and reinstate the lawful felony. | The minute order converting the felony to a misdemeanor was a valid, formally entered sentence; increasing the sentence after entry violated double jeopardy and was impermissible. | The misdemeanor was unauthorized (the offense was not shoplifting); the trial court properly vacated it and reinstated the felony; no double jeopardy bar. | | Whether any arguable issues exist on appeal from the probation revocation | N/A (People prevailed below) | Appointed counsel filed a Wende brief; Roth challenged the probation revocation generally. | Independent review under People v. Wende disclosed no meritorious issues; the probation revocation and execution of sentence are affirmed. | ### Key Cases Cited People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (Cal. 1979) (procedures for appellate counsel filing an opening brief asserting no arguable issues) People v. Karaman, 4 Cal.4th 335 (Cal. 1992) (valid sentence may not be increased after formal entry; unauthorized sentences may be corrected) People v. Scott, 9 Cal.4th 331 (Cal. 1994) (distinguishing unauthorized-sentence doctrine from forfeited claims) People v. Welch, 5 Cal.4th 228 (Cal. 1993) (unauthorized sentence discussion; when questions are pure law) People v. Amaya, 239 Cal.App.4th 379 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (discussed by the court; trial court’s resentencing under collateral initiative found void where ineligible) In re J.L., 242 Cal.App.4th 1108 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (interpretation of “commercial establishment” under § 459.5 referenced) * People v. Stylz, 2 Cal.App.5th 530 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (storage locker leased by an individual is not a commercial establishment under the shoplifting statute)