Hallam

People v. Hallam

Good Law
2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 807·207 Cal. Rptr. 3d 812·3 Cal. App. 5th 905
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 29, 2016B266185California2,813 words

Opinion

Opinion

Lui, J.

In this appeal we consider whether the entry during business hours into a commercial establishment’s employee restroom to commit larceny qualifies as “shoplifting” under Penal Code section 459.5 as enacted by the voters in Proposition 47. We conclude that it does.

Nicholas Hallam appeals an order denying his petition for resentencing/ application to redesignate his felony conviction for second degree burglary as misdemeanor shoplifting pursuant to Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (Proposition 47 or the Act). (§§ 1170.18, subds. (a)-(e), (f)-(i), 459.5.) The trial court reasoned that because appellant entered a store through the back entrance and committed the theft in an “employee area” of the store, the offense did not meet the definition of “shoplifting” under section 459.5, and his felony conviction thus did not qualify for resentencing or redesignation as a misdemeanor under section 1170.18, subdivisions (a) through (e) or (f) through (i). Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his application because his crime satisfied the elements of shoplifting under section 459.5 and the factors cited by the court did not disqualify him from…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.