People v. Hudson
Decision Date | 16 August 2016 |
Docket Number | D068439 |
Citation | 2 Cal.App.5th 575,206 Cal.Rptr.3d 336 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Babyray HUDSON, Defendant and Appellant. |
Certified for Partial Publication.*
Jill M. Klein, Pasedena, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Randall D. Einhorn and Marilyn L. George, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
HUFFMAN
, J.
Babyray Hudson appeals from an order denying his petition to reduce his second degree burglary and forgery convictions to misdemeanors under Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (the Act). (Pen. Code,1
§ 1170.18.) Hudson's convictions involve a 2011 incident in which he entered a bank, falsely impersonating another person, with the intent to commit a felony by signing someone else's name to a check. We conclude that, while a bank is a commercial establishment (§ 459.5), the trial court properly denied the petition because Hudson failed to establish his eligibility for resentencing.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Hudson pled guilty to one count each of second degree burglary (§ 459), forgery (§ 470, subd. (a)), and false impersonation (§ 529, subd. (a)(2)). He also admitted the truth of two prior prison term commitment allegations. (§§ 667.5 & 668.) The trial court sentenced Hudson to a total term of five years, suspended execution of the sentence, granted three years formal probation and indicated Hudson was to complete a residential treatment program of no less than six months. The trial court later revoked and terminated probation and imposed the previously stayed five-year commitment, to be served locally under section 1170, subdivision (h).
In 2014, after passage of the Act, Hudson filed a petition asserting his second degree burglary and forgery convictions must be reduced to misdemeanors, and asking the court to exercise its discretion to reduce the false impersonation conviction to a misdemeanor. The trial court denied the petition, finding a bank is not a commercial establishment under the Act and that Hudson intended to take property in excess of $950. Hudson timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES
In November 2014, the electorate approved the Act, which makes certain theft-related and drug-related offenses misdemeanors. (People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1091, 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 362
(Rivera ).) Among other things, the Act reduced certain types of forgeries identified in section 473, subdivision (b) to misdemeanors, including forgery by check under section 475, as long as the value of the check does not exceed $950. (§ 473, subd. (b).) The Act added section 459.5, which classifies shoplifting as a misdemeanor “where the value of the property that is taken or intended to be taken does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars ($950).” (§ 459.5, subd. (a).)
The Act also created a new resentencing provision under which certain individuals may petition the superior court for a recall of sentence and request resentencing. (§ 1170.18, subd. (a)
.) (Rivera , supra , 233 Cal.App.4th at p. 1092, 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 362.)
“ ‘In interpreting a voter initiative, we apply the same principles that govern our construction of a statute.’ ” (People v. Lopez (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1002, 1006, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 869, 103 P.3d 270
.) “ (People v. Superior Court (Cervantes ) (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1007, 1014, 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 86
.)
SECOND DEGREE BURGLARY CONVICTION
Hudson pled guilty to second degree burglary based on his act of entering a bank, falsely impersonating another person, with the intent to commit a felony by signing someone else's name to a check. The question presented is whether the circumstances of the offense entitle Hudson to resentencing under the Act. The inquiry is one of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo. (People v. Ravaux (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 914, 919, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 211
.)
Section 459.5 defines “shoplifting” as: (1) entry into a commercial establishment; (2) while that establishment is open during regular business hours; (3) with the intent to commit larceny; and (4) the value of the property that is taken or intended to be taken does not exceed $950. Hudson argues elements 1, 3 and 4 in this appeal. As we shall explain, the trial court did not err in refusing to resentence Hudson's second degree burglary conviction as, while a bank is a commercial establishment and Hudson's actions qualified as larceny, Hudson failed to carry his burden of showing that he was eligible for resentencing.
The trial court denied the petition finding that a bank is not a commercial establishment under the Act. Hudson asserts the trial court erred because the plain language of section 459.5 and the legislative intent behind the Act compel the conclusion that a “commercial establishment” as used in the new shoplifting statute must be broadly construed to include a bank.
2016, S233546; People v. Triplett (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 824, 829, 831, 198 Cal.Rptr.3d 678
, review granted April 27, 2016, S233172 [ ].)
Focusing on the common definition of “shoplifting,” the People contend a bank is a financial business where transactions are held, not a commercial establishment where items are on display for sale. (Black's Law Dict. (10th ed. 2014) p. 1590 [ ].) The plain language of section 459.5 compels the conclusion that a bank qualifies as a commercial establishment.
The People erroneously focus on the word “shoplifting,” which is not an element of the crime. Rather section 459.5 gives shoplifting a more technical definition involving four separate elements, including entry into a commercial establishment. Significantly, the Act does not define shoplifting according to its common meaning and there is nothing in the text of the Act to support a conclusion that the voters intended to adopt the common meaning of shoplifting.
The court in In re J.L . (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1108, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 482
discussed the definition of “commercial establishment” in the context of a minor stealing a cell phone from the high school locker of another student. (Id . at p. 1111, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 482.) The J.L. court affirmed the adjudication of the minor for burglary, holding the location of the theft did not occur at a “commercial establishment” as contemplated by section 459.5. (J.L., supra, at p. 1114, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 482
.) The J.L. court noted that the commonsense meaning of the term commercial establishment “is one that is primarily engaged in commerce, that is, the buying and selling of goods or services. That commonsense understanding accords with dictionary definitions and other legal sources. (Webster's 3d New Internat. Dict. (2002) p. 456 [ ]; The Oxford English Reference Dict. (2d ed. 1996) p. 290 [ ]; Black's Law Dict. (10th ed. 2014) p. 325 [ ]; see also 37 C.F.R. § 258.2 [ ]; Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(2)(b)
[...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Holm
...to the education of students.” ( In re J.L., supra , 242 Cal.App.4th at p. 1114, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 482.)In People v. Hudson (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 575, 580, 206 Cal.Rptr.3d 336, the court applied the same definition of “commercial establishment” and held a commercial bank is such an establishme......
-
People v. Jackson
...intent to commit larceny, and (4) the value of the property that is taken or intended to be taken does not exceed $950. (People v. Hudson (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 575, 580; People v. Stylz, supra, 2 Cal.App.5th at p. 534; People v. Contreras (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 868, 892.) "Any other entry in......
-
People v. Thomas
...establishment]; People v. Holm (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 141, 147 [golf and country club is commercial establishment]; People v. Hudson (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 575, 581-582, review granted October 26, 2016, S237340 [bank is commercial establishment]; People v. Abarca (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 475, 481-4......
-
People v. Pridemore
...show he was convicted of a qualifying offense, including the value of the property involved if necessary for relief. (People v. Hudson (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 575, 583-584; People v. Johnson (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 953, 969-970; People v. Hall (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th1255, 1263; People v. Perkins (......