P v. Hallam (2nd Dist, Div.1) Computer Store's Employee Bathroom Is a "Commercial Establishment" Under PC 459.5

In 2011, Mr. Hallam walked into a computer store.  With permission, he used the employee bathroom.  Hallam then walked out the back door of the store only to climb back in through the same bathroom's open window, whereupon he stole a 350 dollar air compressor.

For this he was convicted of felony second-degree burglary and sentenced to two years in the State's crowbar motel.  In 2015, Hallam filed a petition pursuant to PC 1170.18 to reduce his felony burglary to a misdemeanor shoplift.  Under the following reasoning, the trial court denied Hallam's petition.

 [T]he statute [459.5] “anticipates” entry into an area of a commercial establishment to which the public has access and where merchandise is sold. Because [Hallam] did not enter the store through the front door and he took an item from the employee area . . . [his] offense did not meet the criteria for shoplifting under section 459.5.

Hallam appealed.  

The Second District reverses.

The issue is one of statutory interpretation, namely Penal Code section 459.5.

(1) entry into a commercial establishment, (2) while the establishment is open during regular business hours, and (3) with intent to commit larceny of property valued at $950 or less.

Clearly the computer store was a commercial establishment.  The time was around eleven in the morning and there was no dispute the computer store was open for business.  Hallam intended to make off with the air compressor, which was worth 350 dollars.  Textually there is no reason Hallam's crime is not a misdemeanor shoplift.  

But alas there is the "additional burglary" theory espoused in People v. Garcia, 62 Cal. 4th 1116.  In Garcia, the California Supreme Court stated that entrance into a room within a larger structure may constitute a separate burglary if there is a "separate and objectionably reasonable expectation of protection from intrusion relative to the larger structure".   Such an expectation may be evinced by the smaller room or area being owned, leased, or occupied by a distinct entity or by the area being locked (such as the storage area in P v. Stylz)

Since the employee bathroom in this computer store was obviously open to customers (Hallam had permission), there was no such expectation of protection.   

As a consequence, Hallam gets his misdemeanor.