## Facts

- Giovanni Gonzales stole his grandmother’s checkbook and, on two occasions, entered a bank during regular business hours.
- He presented checks payable to himself for $125 each; the grandmother did not sign or authorize the checks.
- Gonzales was charged with felony second degree burglary for entering with intent to commit larceny or a felony and pleaded guilty; he also admitted a prior prison term and received a felony sentence.
- After enactment of Proposition 47, which created misdemeanor “shoplifting” (Penal Code § 459.5) and a resentencing procedure (Penal Code § 1170.18), Gonzales petitioned to recall his sentence and be resentenced as a misdemeanant.
- The trial court denied the petition, and the Court of Appeal affirmed on the ground that Gonzales intended theft by false pretenses, not “larceny,” and thus did not commit shoplifting.

## Issues

1. Whether “larceny” in Penal Code § 459.5 (shoplifting) is limited to common-law larceny or instead includes all forms of theft under California’s consolidated theft statutes.
2. Whether entering a bank during business hours to cash a stolen check for less than $950 qualifies as misdemeanor shoplifting, making the defendant eligible to seek resentencing under Penal Code § 1170.18.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal.
- The Court held that “larceny” in § 459.5 is read broadly, consistent with California’s unified theft scheme, to include nonlarcenous thefts such as theft by false pretenses.
- Gonzales’s conduct—entering an open commercial establishment during business hours intending to obtain $125 by cashing a stolen check—constituted shoplifting under § 459.5.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings to allow consideration of Gonzales’s resentencing petition under § 1170.18.

## Legal Principles

- In interpreting § 459.5, “larceny” is construed in light of Penal Code §§ 484 and 490a to mean “theft” generally, including theft by false pretenses and embezzlement.
- Entry into a commercial establishment that is open during regular business hours with intent to commit theft of property valued at $950 or less constitutes misdemeanor shoplifting under § 459.5.
- If conduct falls within § 459.5(a), it must be charged as shoplifting; the defendant may not also be charged with burglary or theft of the same property.
- A person serving a felony sentence for conduct that would be misdemeanor shoplifting after Proposition 47 may petition for recall of sentence and resentencing under Penal Code § 1170.18, subject to statutory eligibility requirements.

## Conclusion

The court construed Proposition 47’s shoplifting statute to cover entries intended to accomplish any form of theft under California law, including theft by false pretenses, and held that a bank entry during business hours to cash a stolen check for less than $950 qualifies as shoplifting for purposes of resentencing eligibility.


People v. Gonzales, 2 Cal. 5th 858, 392 P.3d 437 (Cal. 2017)