People v. Daniels
| Decision Date | 12 January 2017 |
| Docket Number | H043202 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ZACHARY MICHAEL DANIELS, Defendant and Appellant. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. No. F24634)
In 2013, defendant Zachary Michael Daniels entered two different Safeway grocery stores and used a stolen credit card to make purchases. He pleaded guilty to two counts of burglary (Pen. Code, § 459)1 and was ordered to serve two concurrent 16-month jail sentences. After he completed his sentences, he petitioned the trial court to have his two burglary convictions reduced to misdemeanor violations of shoplifting (§ 459.5) under Proposition 47. The trial court denied his petition, finding he had entered the Safeway stores with the intent to fraudulently use a credit card or commit identity theft, which did not render him eligible for relief under Proposition 47. Defendant appealed.
For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the trial court's order. Entering a commercial establishment with the intent to use a stolen credit card to purchase merchandise worth less than $950 constitutes misdemeanor shoplifting under section 459.5.
On April 30, 2013, the Santa Cruz County District Attorney's Office filed a complaint charging defendant with a count of receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)) and three counts of second degree burglary (§ 459).
On May 10, 2013, defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of second degree burglary. Defendant stipulated to the following as the factual basis of his plea: The trial court sentenced defendant to two concurrent terms of 16 months in jail and dismissed the remaining counts.
On November 12, 2015, defendant filed a petition seeking to have his two felony burglary convictions redesignated as misdemeanors under section 1170.18, subdivisions (f) and (g). Defendant's petition indicated he had completed serving his sentences. The People objected to defendant's petition, arguing he had not met his burden to prove that the amount of merchandise he took or attempted to take during the burglaries was less than $950.
Defendant filed a memorandum in support of his petition, arguing his two burglary convictions should be redesignated as misdemeanor violations of shoplifting under section 459.5. Defendant claimed that
On January 26, 2016, the trial court held a hearing on defendant's petition. Instead of arguing that defendant failed to meet his burden to prove he took or attempted to take merchandise worth less than $950 for each of the two burglaries, the People urged the court to deny the petition because defendant had used a fraudulent credit card to commit the thefts. Therefore, the People insisted defendant had not committed larceny but had committed identity theft. Agreeing with the People, the trial court denied the petition, concluding that entering a commercial establishment and fraudulently using a credit card to make purchases was not shoplifting under section 459.5. Defendant appealed.
Defendant argues the trial court erred when it denied his petition to redesignate his felony convictions as misdemeanors on the basis that he entered the Safeway stores with the intent to fraudulently use a credit card. We agree and reverse the trial court's denial of his petition.
In November 2014, the voters passed Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. Proposition 47 reduced certain nonviolent drug and theft offenses to misdemeanors. It also added section 459.5, which provides:
Proposition 47 also enacted section 1170.18. Under section 1170.18, subdivision (f), defendants who have already completed their sentences for felonyconvictions who would have been guilty of misdemeanors had Proposition 47 been in effect at the time of their offenses may petition the trial court to have their convictions redesignated as misdemeanors. Under section 1170.18, subdivision (g), if the defendants satisfy the criteria set forth under subdivision (f), the trial court shall designate their felony convictions as misdemeanors.
Defendant committed the two burglaries when he entered two Safeway stores and attempted to make and successfully made purchases using a stolen credit card. Defendant argues both offenses satisfy the statutory definition of shoplifting set forth under section 459.5, because he entered the stores with the intent to commit the crime of larceny, which includes theft by false pretenses. The People disagree, arguing the trial court correctly decided that since defendant entered the Safeway stores with the intent to fraudulently use the stolen credit card, he essentially committed identity theft (§ 530.5) and is ineligible for Proposition 47 relief.
To resolve these arguments, we must interpret the terms of the voter initiative. In doing so, "we apply the same principles that govern statutory construction." (People v. Rizo (2000) 22 Cal.4th 681, 685.) "[O]ur primary purpose is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the voters who passed the initiative measure." (In re Littlefield (1993) 5 Cal.4th 122, 130.) (State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Garamendi (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1029, 1043.)
The claims made by defendant here are nearly identical to the ones advanced by the defendant in this court's recent decision in People v. Garrett (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 82 (review granted Aug. 24, 2016, S236012) (Garrett).2 Garrett is factually similar. There, the defendant entered a convenience store with a stolen credit card and attempted to purchase gift cards valued at $50. (Id. at p. 84.) The defendant pleaded no contest to burglary (§ 459). He later petitioned to be resentenced under Proposition 47, but his petition was denied after the trial court determined he had entered the convenience store with the intent to commit identity theft (§ 530.5). (Garrett, supra, at p. 84.) This court reversed the trial court's denial of the defendant's petition for resentencing after analyzing the statutory language of sections 459.5, 490a, and 484. We found the defendant's conduct constituted theft by false pretenses. Therefore, the defendant entered the stores with the intent to commit larceny and his conviction was eligible for redesignation as shoplifting under section 459.5. (Garrett, supra, at p. 89.) As we explain below, we find Garrett's analysis of sections 459.5, 490a, and 484 to be persuasive.
First, we reject the People's argument that defendant is presumptively ineligible for Proposition 47 relief because he entered the Safeway stores with the intent tofraudulently use a stolen credit card or to commit identity theft.3 Section 459.5 mandates that notwithstanding section 459, a person who enters a store during regular business hours with the intent to commit "larceny" shall be punished as a misdemeanant if the value of the goods intended to be taken or taken is less than $950. Subdivision (b) of section 459.5 then specifically states that any act defined as shoplifting "shall be charged as shoplifting" (italics added) and may not be charged as burglary or theft of the same property. Assuming for the sake of argument that defendant did enter the Safeway stores with the intent to commit identity theft, this intent did not negate or override his intent to purchase items from the store using the stolen credit card. A defendant can have multiple criminal intents. Section 459.5 does not require a defendant to...
To continue reading
Request your trial