People v. Valencia, 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 194

On June 28, 2014, Valencia purchased a prepaid AT&T phone for $249.74 using counterfeit $50 bills and later admitted the bills were counterfeit.
He was charged with second degree burglary (§ 459) and forgery (§ 470, subd. (d)); pleaded guilty to second degree burglary and received an eight-month county term consecutive to unrelated sentences.
After Proposition 47 passed, Valencia petitioned under Penal Code § 1170.18 to have his felony burglary resentenced as a misdemeanor.
The trial court denied the petition, reasoning Valencia’s conduct did not constitute "shoplifting" under newly enacted § 459.5 and thus remained a burglary ineligible for § 1170.18 relief.
The Court of Appeal reviewed whether § 459.5’s definition of shoplifting limits its scope to the ordinary meaning of the word or instead incorporates the statutory term "larceny" (read as "theft" under § 490a), which would cover thefts in commercial establishments under $950.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 459.5’s use of the label "shoplifting" restricts relief to conduct matching the common meaning of "shoplifting"	Trial court (People) argued “shoplifting” should be read by its ordinary meaning, excluding purchases with counterfeit bills	Valencia argued § 459.5 incorporates the legal term "larceny" (read as "theft"), covering all thefts in a commercial establishment under $950 regardless of common usage	Court held § 459.5’s reference to "larceny" (and § 490a’s substitution of "theft") means the statute covers all thefts in open commercial establishments under $950; common meaning of "shoplifting" is irrelevant
Whether Valencia’s conduct would have been prosecutable as burglary had Prop. 47 been in effect	People argued the burglary conviction remained valid because the conduct did not fit common "shoplifting"	Valencia argued his theft was under $950 and forgery/theft under $950 are misdemeanors under Prop. 47, so burglary could not be sustained	Court held the theft was under $950 and forgery of that amount is a misdemeanor under Prop. 47; therefore burglary could not have been charged and Valencia is eligible for § 1170.18 relief

People v. Rivera, 233 Cal.App.4th 1085 (discusses § 459.5 shoplifting definition)
People v. Williams, 57 Cal.4th 776 (explains common-law larceny and its elements)
People v. Rizo, 22 Cal.4th 681 (statutory construction principles for voter initiatives)
In re Littlefield, 5 Cal.4th 122 (primary purpose to effectuate voter intent)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Garamendi, 32 Cal.4th 1029 (read statutes in context and harmonize parts)
John L. v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.4th 158 (presumption electorate aware of existing law)
People v. Weidert, 39 Cal.3d 836 (related to awareness of existing law)
People v. Ashley, 42 Cal.2d 246 (consolidation of larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses into theft statute)