People v. Hallam
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed the denial of his petition for resentencing/application to redesignate his felony conviction for second degree burglary as misdemeanor shoplifting pursuant to Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, Penal Code 1170.18, subds. (a)–(e), (f)–(i), 459.5. In this case, the trial court reasoned that because defendant entered a store through the back entrance and committed the theft in an “employee area” of the store, the offense did not meet the definition of “shoplifting” under section 459.5, and his felony conviction thus did not qualify for resentencing or redesignation as a misdemeanor under section 1170.18, subdivisions (a)–(e) or (f)–(i). The court concluded, however, that entry during business hours into a commercial establishment’s employee rest room to commit larceny qualifies as “shoplifting” under section 459.5. The court agreed with defendant that his crime satisfied the elements of shoplifting under section 459.5 and the factors cited by the trial court did not disqualify him from relief under section 1170.18, subdivisions (b) or (i). Accordingly, the court reversed the trial court's denial of relief.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.