People v. Smith
1 Cal. App. 5th 266
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Michael Lee Smith pled guilty in 2011 to two counts of second-degree burglary (Check Exchange and Staples) and one count of passing counterfeit bills; he received an aggregate prison term and did not appeal his counterfeit-bill denial.
- After Proposition 47 (Nov. 2014), Smith filed a Penal Code §1170.18 petition (form declaration) seeking resentencing on counts 1 and 2, asserting under penalty of perjury the value involved did not exceed $950.
- The People’s response conceded Smith was entitled to resentencing on count 2 and requested a hearing for resentencing, but objected to count 1 on the ground the Check Exchange was "not a commercial establishment."
- The superior court summarily denied relief for counts 1 and 2 (no hearing recorded); the court’s stated basis for count 1 denial was that the Check Exchange involved presenting counterfeit bills and was not a commercial establishment.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded as to counts 1 and 2, holding (1) a check-cashing business is a "commercial establishment" under Penal Code §459.5 and (2) Smith’s sworn declaration (uncalleged contest by the People) sufficed at the pleading stage to meet the value element, so the superior court must determine eligibility (and may hold a hearing) on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a check-cashing business is a "commercial establishment" under §459.5 | Check Exchange is not a commercial establishment; thus burglary conviction ineligible for shoplifting reclassification | Check Exchange is a place of business exchanging goods/services; therefore qualifies as a commercial establishment for §459.5 | A check-cashing business is a commercial establishment; the superior court erred to the extent it ruled otherwise |
| Whether "intent to commit larceny" in §459.5 requires a trespassory taking (i.e., excludes theft by false pretenses) | Larceny requires trespassory taking; shoplifting should exclude false-pretense takings | §459.5 mirrors burglary intent; intent to commit larceny includes theft by false pretenses (Parson) | "Larceny" in §459.5 includes theft by false pretenses; passing counterfeit bills can qualify as shoplifting |
| Whether petitioner met prima facie burden re value (< $950) via sworn petition | People: petitioner failed to prove value so denial may be affirmed | Smith: his signed declaration under penalty of perjury asserting value ≤ $950, unchallenged by People in response, suffices at pleading stage | Petitioner’s declaration, coupled with People’s noncontest as to count 2, is sufficient to avoid summary denial; court must make factual determination (hearing permitted) on remand |
| Proper remedy where superior court summarily denied resentencing without resolving disputed facts | People: alternative grounds could support denial | Smith: summary denial improper where declaration and People’s response supported eligibility | Reverse and remand for the superior court to determine eligibility (and hold hearing if necessary) on counts 1 and 2 |
Key Cases Cited
- Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma County Union High School Dist., 29 Cal.4th 911 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- People v. Rizo, 22 Cal.4th 681 (same principles apply to voter initiatives)
- Horwich v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.4th 272 (statutory construction to effectuate legislative intent)
- People v. Woodhead, 43 Cal.3d 1002 (use of extrinsic aids when statutory language ambiguous)
- People v. Parson, 44 Cal.4th 332 (intent to commit theft by false pretense supports burglary)
- People v. Williams, 57 Cal.4th 776 (context on robbery considered but not controlling for §459.5 meaning of larceny)
- People v. Sherow, 239 Cal.App.4th 875 (a defendant’s declaration can suffice at petition stage)
- People v. Contreras, 237 Cal.App.4th 868 (value determination for §459.5 eligibility is a factual finding for trial court)
- Grasso v. Crow, 57 Cal.App.4th 847 (description of check-cashing transactions)
- HH Computer Systems, Inc. v. Pacific City Bank, 231 Cal.App.4th 221 (recognition of the economic role of check-cashing businesses)