People v. Sloat ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • Filed 4/10/17 (reposted to correct file date)
    CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION FIVE
    THE PEOPLE,                                       B270080
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                 (Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No. KA057527)
    v.
    CHRISTOPHER JAMES SLOAT,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
    Angeles County, Salvatore T. Sirna, Judge. Reversed and
    remanded.
    Tyrone A. Sandoval, under appointment by the Court of
    Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
    Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler,
    Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior
    Assistant Attorney General, Mary Sanchez and Analee J. Brodie,
    Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    Defendant, Christopher James Sloat, filed a Penal Code1
    section 1170.18, subdivision (f) petition. Defendant sought to
    have his 2002 felony petty theft with a prior conviction (former §
    666, Stats. 2000, ch. 135, § 134, p. 1991)) designated a
    misdemeanor. At a hearing defendant did not attend and where
    he was not represented by counsel, the trial court denied the
    petition. The trial court impliedly agreed with the prosecutor
    that defendant was ineligible because the theft was not from an
    “open commercial business.” This was an apparent reference to
    section 459.5, subdivision (a), which governs the crime of
    shoplifting. Defendant argues, and the Attorney General
    concedes, defendant is eligible to have his conviction under
    former section 666 reduced to a misdemeanor. The Attorney
    General states: “[D]efendant was not seeking to have his . . .
    conviction reduced to misdemeanor shoplifting. Rather, he
    sought reduction of his felony petty theft with priors conviction to
    misdemeanor petty theft. . . . Unlike shoplifting (§ 459.5[, subd.
    (a)]), petty theft (§ 490.2[, subd. (a)]) does not require that a
    defendant enter a commercial establishment during regular
    business hours.” We agree with the Attorney General’s analysis.
    1   Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
    2
    The order denying defendant’s petition to designate as a
    misdemeanor his conviction for petty theft with a prior is
    reversed. Upon remittitur issuance, the trial court is to
    reconsider the petition in light of our analysis.
    CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
    TURNER, P.J.
    We concur:
    KRIEGLER, J.
    BAKER, J.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B270080A

Filed Date: 4/10/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/10/2017