People v. Martin
Decision Date | 29 August 2018 |
Docket Number | 2d Crim. No. B283097 |
Citation | 237 Cal.Rptr.3d 504,26 Cal.App.5th 825 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Amaya Monique MARTIN, Defendant and Respondent. |
Gregory D. Totten, District Attorney, Michelle J. Contois, Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Todd W. Howeth, Public Defender, William M. Quest, Snr. Deputy Public Defender, Cerise M. Fritsch, Deputy Public Defender, for Defendant and Respondent.
The fabric of the law will stretch only so far before it will unravel. Here, a professional thief entered in to an international conspiracy to commit as many petty thefts as she could get away with. She was foiled by security guards and the police. She seeks to stretch Proposition 47 to cover her conspiracy to commit petty theft. She convinced the trial court. But it just will not stretch that far. It is difficult, if not impossible, to believe that the electorate intended that a person, such as respondent, with five prior separate prison terms who joined an international conspiracy to commit petty theft, would deserve misdemeanor treatment. To say it out loud or put it on paper causes considerable pause.
Respondent Amaya Monique Martin was convicted of felony conspiracy to commit petty theft. ( Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1).)1 The People appeal from an order granting respondent's petition to recall her felony sentence and resentence her to misdemeanor shoplifting pursuant to sections 459.5 and 1170.18, which were enacted by Proposition 47.
We reverse. The trial court erroneously determined that a felony conviction for conspiracy to commit petty theft is eligible for reduction to a misdemeanor under section 1170.18. We hold that Proposition 47 does not authorize the reduction of a felony conspiracy conviction to misdemeanor shoplifting.
The information consisted of eight counts. In January 2016 respondent pleaded guilty to three counts: count 2 (felony commercial burglary over $950 in violation of § 459), count 4 (felony conspiracy to commit petty theft), and count 8 (misdemeanor shoplifting in violation of § 459.5, subd. (a)). All of the crimes were committed on different dates in January 2015. The remaining counts were dismissed. Respondent admitted five prior separate prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and one prior "strike." (§ 667, subds. (c)-(e)(1).)
The trial court dismissed the strike and three prior prison terms. It sentenced respondent to prison for three years four months, to be served consecutively to a four-year prison term imposed for a 2015 burglary conviction in another case. The consecutive prison sentence was calculated as follows: eight months for the burglary (one-third the middle term of two years), plus eight months for conspiracy to commit petty theft (same), plus two years for the two prior prison terms. As to the misdemeanor, respondent was sentenced to a concurrent term of 180 days.
As to count 4, conspiracy, on January 24, 2015, a security guard saw respondent and two other women in the cosmetic aisle of a Walmart store. He recognized the women as suspects in a prior shoplifting at another Walmart store. One of the women put cosmetics into her purse. The three women walked past open cash registers and exited the store. The security guard stopped them. He recovered stolen cosmetics valued at $794.50. Cosmetics valued at $486.30 were missing and never recovered.
A sheriff's deputy viewed a video of the incident. The video "showed three female subjects entering the Wal-Mart store, walking to the cosmetic aisle, all standing together, looking around the area nervously, putting items into purses, and then walking out of the store together." It appeared that "they were all working together."
As to count 2, felony commercial burglary, on January 16, 2015, respondent and two other persons "arrived together in a ... sedan" at a Walmart store. They entered the store and walked to the cosmetics aisle. "They proceeded to remove cosmetics items from the shelves and fill a purse and a grocery-type reusable bag that was placed ... in the [shopping] cart." "They all left the store within seconds of one another after walking past cash registers [and] not paying for the items they selected." The stolen cosmetics were valued at $966.2 The property was never recovered.
As to count 8, misdemeanor shoplifting, on January 23, 2015, respondent and two other persons entered an Alberston's store together. While respondent appeared to act as "a lookout," the two other persons removed "[a]lcohol items and possibly cosmetics" from shelves and "secret[ed] them."
An Albertson's employee saw the three persons "walking out the store with a cart loaded with merchandise which they didn't pay for." The employee said, The employee could not recall the value of the property taken.
Respondent told detectives:
At the general election on November 4, 2014, the voters approved Proposition 47, which became effective the next day. ( People v. Gonzales (2017) 2 Cal.5th 858, 862, 216 Cal.Rptr.3d 285, 392 P.3d 437 ( Gonzales ).) Section 459.5, subdivision (a) provides, "Shoplifting shall be punished as a misdemeanor."
Proposition 47 added section 1170.18 to the Penal Code. If a person is serving a sentence for a felony offense that would have been misdemeanor shoplifting pursuant to section 459.5, section 1170.18 permits the person to file a petition to recall the felony sentence and resentence the person to a misdemeanor.
Conspiracy To Commit Petty Theft Is a "Wobbler"
Since 1872 when the Penal Code was enacted, conspiracy has been a separate and distinct crime. ( People v. Johnson (2013) 57 Cal.4th 250, 262, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 70, 303 P.3d 379 ( Johnson ).)
( People v. Mullins (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 594, 611, 228 Cal.Rptr.3d 198 ( Mullins ).) Such a crime is referred to as a " ‘wobbler.’ " ( People v. Williams (2010) 49 Cal.4th 405, 461, fn. 6, 111 Cal.Rptr.3d 589, 233 P.3d 1000.) ( Ibid . ) " ‘ ’ ( People v. Tran (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 877, 885, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 638.)
" ( Mullins , supra , 19 Cal.App.5th at p. 607, 228 Cal.Rptr.3d 198.)
( Johnson , supra , 57 Cal.4th at p. 259, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 70, 303 P.3d 379.)
( Johnson , supra , 57 Cal.4th at pp. 258-259, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 70, 303 P.3d 379 ; see also Callanan v. United States (1961) 364 U.S. 587, 593, 81 S.Ct. 321, 5 L.Ed.2d 312.)
People v. Segura (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1282, 191 Cal.Rptr.3d 904 ( Segura ), is directly on point, but the trial court refused to follow it. In Segura the defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit theft. "He admitted he had unlawfully entered a 7-Eleven store with the intent to commit larceny and had conspired with two codefendants to commit a theft." ( Id . at p. 1283, 191 Cal.Rptr.3d 904.) The trial court denied the defendant's petition to recall his felony sentence and resentence him to a misdemeanor.
The Segura court upheld the trial court's ruling "because Proposition 47 does not apply to convictions for conspiracy." ( Segura , supra , 239 Cal.App.4th at p. 1284, 191 Cal.Rptr.3d 904.) It said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Koenig
...the parties to the agreement for the purpose of carrying out the object of the conspiracy. [Citations.]’ " ( People v. Martin (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 825, 831, 237 Cal.Rptr.3d 504, italics added; ( § 182, subd. (a)(1) ).) Citing LaFave, defendant points out that one cannot conspire to commit ......
-
People v. Valenzuela
...even if theft is part of the underlying conduct.On this point, two Court of Appeal cases are instructive. People v. Martin (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 825, 237 Cal.Rptr.3d 504 ( Martin ) concluded that conspiracy (§ 182, subd. (a)(1)) to commit petty theft was not subject to Proposition 47 resent......
-
People v. Perez
... ... v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 ... [“Courts exercising inferior jurisdiction must accept ... the law declared by courts of superior jurisdiction. It is ... not their function to attempt to overrule decisions of a ... higher court.”]; People v. Martin (2018) 26 ... Cal.App.5th 825, 832-833 [same].) Accordingly, the trial ... court's reliance on Perez's 2014 juvenile ... adjudication of assault for the purposes of the three strikes ... law did not violate Perez's constitutional right to a ... jury trial. [ 17 ] ... ...
-
People v. Pryer, B283602
...the lack of right to a jury trial in that proceeding. Nguyen remains controlling precedent binding on this court. (People v. Martin (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 825, 832-833 ["'Courts exercising inferior jurisdiction must accept the law declared by courts of superior jurisdiction. It is not their ......