California v. Jennings
Annotate this CaseBrian Jennings was convicted by jury on four counts of burglary and one count of attempted burglary. Jennings challenged only his count 3 burglary conviction, which offense involved his alleged entry into a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny while that establishment was open during regular business hours. Proposition 47, enacted in 2014, created a new misdemeanor offense of "shoplifting," set forth in Penal Code section 459.5(a). On appeal, Jennings contended that because the new section 459.5 shoplifting offense was "carved out" of the general section 459 burglary offense, the prosecution was required, in the circumstances of this case, to prove he intended to take property with a value exceeding $950. Furthermore, he argued there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that he intended to take property with a value exceeding $950, therefore his count 3 burglary conviction had to be reversed. Alternatively, he contended the trial court prejudicially erred by not sua sponte instructing the jury on the prosecution's duty to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of burglary, including proof that he intended to take property with a value exceeding $950. After review, the Court of Appeal concurred with Jennings, concluding there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that Jennings intended to take property with a value exceeding $950 when he entered the commercial establishment in count 3. The Court also concluded the trial court prejudicially erred by not instructing sua sponte on the $950 property value requirement for the count 3 burglary charge. In addition, the Court agreed Senate Bill No. 136 applied retroactively to Jennings's case pursuant to In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (1965), and therefore reversed the court's imposition and execution of a consecutive one-year section 667.5(b) prior-prison-term enhancement. Accordingly, Jennings' count 3 burglary conviction and one-year section 667.5(b) prior prison term enhancement were reversed, and the matter remanded for resentencing.
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.