People v. Sloat
10 Cal. App. 5th 761, 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 328, 216 Cal. Rptr. 3d 449 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prior felony conviction for petty theft with a prior (former Penal Code § 666) is eligible for redesignation as a misdemeanor under Penal Code § 1170.18, as the relevant comparison is to misdemeanor petty theft (§ 490.2), which does not require the theft to have occurred in a commercial establishment like the separate offense of shoplifting (§ 459.5).
Facts:
- In 2002, Christopher James Sloat was convicted of felony petty theft with a prior conviction under former California Penal Code § 666.
- Sloat's 2002 conviction was based on an act of theft.
- The theft that led to the conviction did not occur within an open commercial business.
- This conduct did not meet the statutory definition of shoplifting, which requires entry into a commercial establishment during regular business hours.
Procedural Posture:
- Christopher James Sloat filed a petition in the trial court under Penal Code § 1170.18 to have his 2002 felony conviction for petty theft with a prior redesignated as a misdemeanor.
- At a hearing which Sloat did not attend and at which he was not represented by counsel, the prosecutor argued he was ineligible.
- The trial court denied the petition, implicitly accepting the prosecutor's reasoning.
- Sloat, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a felony conviction for petty theft with a prior under former Penal Code § 666 qualify for redesignation as a misdemeanor under Penal Code § 1170.18, even if the underlying theft did not occur in a commercial establishment during business hours?
Opinions:
Majority - Turner, P. J.
Yes. A felony conviction for petty theft with a prior qualifies for redesignation as a misdemeanor even if the theft did not occur in a commercial establishment. The court reasoned that the trial court and prosecutor incorrectly applied the standards for shoplifting (§ 459.5) to the defendant's petition. The defendant was seeking to reduce his conviction to misdemeanor petty theft (§ 490.2), not misdemeanor shoplifting. Unlike shoplifting, the crime of petty theft does not contain an element requiring the offense to occur in a commercial establishment during business hours. Therefore, Sloat is eligible for resentencing, and the trial court's denial was based on a legal error.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of California's Proposition 47, specifically distinguishing the resentencing criteria for petty theft from those for shoplifting. It prevents trial courts from conflating the two distinct offenses and improperly narrowing the scope of relief available under the law. The ruling ensures that individuals convicted of felony petty theft with a prior, where the offense did not occur in a retail setting, are not wrongly excluded from having their convictions redesignated as misdemeanors. This precedent standardizes the application of Penal Code § 1170.18 for a common type of offense.
