P v. Valencia (3rd Dist.) The Legal Definition of "Shoplifting" is Found Within PC 495.5, Not the American Heritage Dictionary

June of 2014, Mr. Valencia strolled into an AT&T retail store and bought a $249.74 prepaid cell phone.  An astute employee noticed the $50 bills Valencia used to pay for the phone looked strange.  Valencia later admitted the bills were counterfeit.

Valencia was charged with commercial burglary, PC 459, and forgery, PC 470.  He pleaded to the commercial burglary and received an eight month (1/3 of the midterm) sentence consecutive to another unrelated sentence.  Following the November 2014 passage of Proposition 47, Valencia petitioned the trial court to reduce his 459 conviction to a misdemeanor under PC 1170.18.  The trial court denied the petition.  The court's reasoning is as follows: [1] PC 459.5 created a crime with the title of "shoplifting", [2] the definition provided for the crime of shoplifting is going into a store during business hours with the intent to commit larceny, [3] thus, the "larceny" within the statutory definition refers to the title, "shoplifting" as the term is commonly understood to mean going into a store to swipe merchandise off the shelf.

Without giving the trial court (deserved, IMEO) points for cynical judicial creativity, the Third District reverses.  

The opinion is concise and, I assume, nearly wrote itself.  The panel examines the statutory language within the relevant context, here the penal code.  The penal code explicitly informs what it means by the term "larceny" in PC 490a. 

Wherever any law or statute of this state refers to or mentions larceny, embezzlement, or stealing, said law or statute shall hereafter be read and interpreted as if the word ‘theft’ were substituted therefor.

With this clear statutory directive, there is no need to trudge into the muck of extrinsic aids and policy considerations and the panel wisely avoids going there.  The panel smartly does acknowledge that Valencia really intended to commit two crimes when he walked into AT&T.  He intended to utter a forged document, PC 470, and intended to steal the phone, PC 484.  However, since the forged item had a value of less than 950 dollars, it was not an intent to commit a felony.  And absent an intent to commit felony forgery, Valencia's crime is not a commercial burglary.  It is shoplifting.