Pak

People v. Pak

Good Law
2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 830·207 Cal. Rptr. 3d 862·3 Cal. App. 5th 1111
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 5, 2016B266718California3,508 words

Opinion

Opinion

Collins, J.

This appeal presents the question of which value is relevant in determining whether the burglary of a pawn shop achieved through pawning stolen goods is reducible to misdemeanor shoplifting under Proposition 47: the value of the stolen goods pawned, or the value of the property obtained in exchange. The trial court concluded that the value of the stolen goods pawned was the key consideration and denied appellant Jane Jeoungmi Pak’s application to designate her burglary conviction as a misdemeanor on that basis. We disagree with the trial court’s analysis. In a commercial burglary involving the successful pawning of stolen goods, the relevant value for Proposition 47 purposes is that of the property received in exchange for the stolen goods. We nonetheless affirm the judgment of the trial court, because appellant did not present evidence that she obtained $950 or less from the pawn shop. Under Proposition 47, the applicant seeking to reduce a burglary conviction to a shoplifting one bears the burden of proving the value of the property taken or intended to be taken. Appellant presented only an assertion that the property taken was valued at less than $950, as well as a…

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.