People v. Triplett, 198 Cal. Rptr. 3d 678

Background

Defendant Christopher Triplett pleaded guilty in two Sutter County cases to second-degree burglary (Pen. Code § 459) and related check/forgery offenses, and admitted prior prison terms; sentences were imposed in 2014.
After Proposition 47 (2014) created misdemeanor shoplifting (§ 459.5) and a procedure for resentencing (§ 1170.18), Triplett petitioned to recall sentence to reduce eligible felonies to misdemeanors.
At the § 1170.18 hearing the prosecutor represented the burglaries involved entering commercial establishments to pass bad checks (allegedly using others’ checks); defense counsel accepted those facts as to one case (0901) but not clearly as to the other (0664).
The trial court allowed reduction of the fictitious-check conviction but denied reduction of both burglary convictions, reasoning the burglaries involved identity theft/forgery rather than shoplifting and expressing a view about voters’ intent.
On appeal Triplett argued the court erred by relying on facts outside the record of conviction and misapplying the law; he also raised (for the first time on appeal) that two one-year prior-prison-term enhancements (§ 667.5(b)) should be stricken.
The Court of Appeal concluded the trial court may consider factual stipulations or clear agreements by the parties that augment (but do not contradict) the record of conviction; it found Triplett eligible for resentencing on one burglary (case No. 0901) but declined to strike the prior-prison-term enhancements because the Act does not apply retroactively to those enhancements.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Triplett)	Held
Whether the trial court may consider facts outside the record of conviction when determining § 1170.18 eligibility	Court may rely on prosecutor's representations at hearing; such representations were reliable	Eligibility determination must be limited to the record of conviction; facts outside it (prosecutor’s proffer) cannot be used	Trial court may consider factual stipulations or clear agreements by parties that augment but do not contradict the record of conviction
Whether burglaries premised on passing bad checks constitute shoplifting/theft under Prop 47	These burglaries were identity theft/forgery (felonies), not shoplifting	The plea factual bases admitted intent to commit theft; passing bad checks falls within statutory theft (§ 484) and thus shoplifting (§ 459.5)	Passing bad checks can constitute theft for purposes of § 459.5; burglary convictions can be eligible if amount ≤ $950 and facts support theft intent
Whether the trial court properly denied resentencing for both burglary convictions based on amount/value	Prosecutor argued amounts made offenses ineligible as shoplifting	Defense accepted facts as to one case showing amounts < $950, but no clear agreement on the other case	Triplett is eligible for resentencing on case No. 0901 (amount agreed < $950); denial as to that conviction reversed and remanded; denial as to the other conviction stands because no clear agreement on amount
Whether Prop 47 allows striking of prior one-year prison-term enhancements (§ 667.5(b))	Prop 47 can’t be applied retroactively to prior-prison-term enhancements	Enhancements should be stricken because of changed classification under Prop 47	Enhancements remain; Act does not operate retroactively to invalidate those prior-prison-term enhancements

Key Cases Cited

People v. Bradford, 227 Cal.App.4th 1322 (Cal. Ct. App.) (trial court generally must determine eligibility from the record of conviction)
People v. Gonzales, 242 Cal.App.4th 35 (Cal. Ct. App.) (bank-check cashing burglary held not shoplifting based on lack of larceny under common-law analysis)
People v. Williams, 57 Cal.4th 776 (Cal.) (discussion of common-law larceny and robbery principles)
People v. Nguyen, 40 Cal.App.4th 28 (Cal. Ct. App.) (statutory theft definitions apply to burglary)
People v. Contreras, 237 Cal.App.4th 868 (Cal. Ct. App.) (procedure and remand for resentencing under § 1170.18)