14 Cal.App.5th 1210
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- Seals stole a cellphone from a store in 2014; confronted the owner with a knife as he fled; charged with second‑degree robbery and second‑degree commercial burglary; trial showed the phone was typically sold for $899 plus tax; the court found true multiple prior strike convictions; the judgment imposed 35 years to life and related sentence adjustments.
- Proposition 47 changed the burglary charge to a shoplifting offense for property value ≤$950; trial addressed whether tax could be included in value to exceed $950 for burglary
- Evidence showed Flores’s usual sale price, including tax, exceeded $950, supporting value finding; there was no evidence that excluding tax would exceed $950
- Seals challenged the value and argued tax should not be included; the court deems tax reimbursement part of fair market value in retail context; court reviews this de novo
- Court directed correction of presentence custody credits to 15% for a violent felony, reducing the credits to 89 days
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sales tax may be included in value for § 459 burglary | Seals: tax cannot be part of value | Seals: value should exclude tax | Tax may be included in value |
| Whether substantial evidence supports robbery conviction | Flores feared Seals due to knife; force/ fear shown | Fear not shown; absence of fear | Sufficient evidence of fear/force; robbery upheld |
| Whether Romero motion to strike priors was abuse of discretion | Court should strike priors to avoid disproportionate sentence | Court properly weighed history and current offense | No abuse; denial upheld |
| Whether 25‑to‑life sentence is cruel and unusual | Sentence disproportionate | Long history justifies sentence | Not disproportionate under narrow proportionality standard |
| Whether presentence credits must be reduced to 15% | Credits calculated as 100% presentence time | Violent felony caps apply | Credits reduced to 89 days (15%) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Pena, 68 Cal.App.3d 100 (1977) (defines fair market value as highest price in open market)
- Xerox Corp. v. County of Orange, 66 Cal.App.3d 746 (1977) (sales tax included in fair market value under market value concept)
- Loeffler v. Target Corp., 58 Cal.4th 1081 (2014) (tax is cost passed to consumer in market pricing)
- People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (2004) (discretionary review under Three Strikes analysis)
- People v. Morehead, 191 Cal.App.4th 765 (2011) (fear may be inferred from circumstances)