People v. Roth, 17 Cal. App. 5th 694

Roth pleaded no contest to second-degree burglary (Pen. Code §459) for entering a leased storage locker and taking tools; the court imposed a felony sentence (suspended) and 36 months probation.
Probation was briefly revoked for missed drug tests, reinstated, then a July 2015 traffic stop produced methamphetamine tossed from the car; probation revocation proceedings followed.
Before the probation revocation hearing, Roth filed a Prop. 47 (§1170.18) petition to recall his felony sentence and be resentenced as misdemeanor "shoplifting" (§459.5); the prosecutor mistakenly told the court Roth qualified, and the court granted relief.
The court later concluded the offense (burglary of a privately leased, locked storage locker) did not qualify as "entry into a commercial establishment" under §459.5, issued an order to show cause, vacated the misdemeanor resentencing as unauthorized, and reinstated the original felony conviction and sentence.
After the probation-violation hearing, the court revoked probation and executed the felony sentence (later corrected nunc pro tunc for an erroneous term). Roth appealed both the probation revocation and the order reinstating the felony; appellate counsel filed a Wende brief as to the probation revocation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether vacating the Proposition 47 misdemeanor and reinstating the felony violated double jeopardy / was beyond the court's power (i.e., was the misdemeanor sentence valid or unauthorized?)	State: The misdemeanor was unauthorized because Roth’s conviction did not meet §459.5’s "commercial establishment" requirement; the court may correct an unauthorized sentence and reinstate the felony.	Roth: The court lacked jurisdiction to increase a formally entered sentence; vacating the misdemeanor and reinstating the felony violated double jeopardy because the misdemeanor was not unauthorized.	Court held the misdemeanor was unauthorized (burglary of a privately leased locked storage locker is not shoplifting); vacatur and reinstatement of the felony were proper.
Whether the probation revocation and execution of sentence raise any arguable appellate issues	State: Evidence supported finding Roth aided/consorted with someone possessing methamphetamine and thus violated probation.	Roth (via Wende brief process): No specific issues raised; invited independent appellate review.	Court conducted Wende review, found no arguable issues, and affirmed the probation revocation and execution order.

People v. Karaman, 4 Cal.4th 335 (California Supreme Court) (distinguishing unauthorized sentences that may be increased after entry)
People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (California Supreme Court) (appellate counsel may seek independent record review when no arguable issues are identified)
Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (U.S. Supreme Court) (Double jeopardy principles)
People v. Scott, 9 Cal.4th 331 (California Supreme Court) (unauthorized-sentence doctrine as narrow exception to waiver)
People v. Welch, 5 Cal.4th 228 (California Supreme Court) (discussion of when unauthorized-sentence questions are pure legal issues)
People v. Serrato, 9 Cal.3d 753 (California Supreme Court) (unauthorized sentences are subject to correction whenever discovered)
In re Ricky H., 30 Cal.3d 176 (California Supreme Court) (unauthorized sentencing correction)
People v. Amaya, 239 Cal.App.4th 379 (Court of Appeal) (discussed but distinguished on unauthorized-sentence analysis)
In re Alexander A., 192 Cal.App.4th 847 (Court of Appeal) (restitution/factual-record sentencing example)
People v. Stylz, 2 Cal.App.5th 530 (Court of Appeal) (storage locker leased to an individual is not a "commercial establishment" under §459.5)
Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (U.S. Supreme Court) (effective assistance in appellate counsel context)
People v. Kelly, 40 Cal.4th 106 (California Supreme Court) (appellate counsel duties and Wende procedure)