P v. Stylz (2nd Dist., Div.4) Storage Rental Business is a "Commercial Establishment" Under PC 459.5; A Renter's Locked Unit Therein Is Not

In 2013, one Mr. Foley rented a storage unit from a business that let storage units.  He filled it with what he estimated to be over four grand worth of his property and placed a lock on it.  While the business was open, Mr. Stylz entered the grounds, broke into Mr. Foley's locked unit and cleaned it out.  For this, Stylz was convicted of PC 459, felony second-degree burglary.

Comes 2015 and Stylz petitions the trial court to reduce his felony burglary conviction to a misdemeanor pursuant to PC 1170.18, a statutory offspring of the November 4, 2014, passage of Proposition 47.  Stylz alleges his burglary, if committed today, would necessarily constitute the misdemeanor crime of shoplifting, defined in PC 459.5.

Notwithstanding Section 459, shoplifting is defined as entering a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny while that establishment is open during regular business hours, where the value of the property that is taken or intended to be taken does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars ($950). 

Stylz claimed the storage rental business was open during his crime, that the business is a commercial establishment, and that contrary to Mr. Foley's four grand valuation, the property Stylz stole was worth less than 950 dollars.  The trial court denied the petition because it found the storage rental business was not "open for the sale of items".  Stylz appealed and now the Second District affirms, albeit on firmer ground than that  used as a foundation by the trial court.

The issue is whether, for purposes of the burglary statute, Mr. Foley's unit is distinct from the storage rental business within which it is located. The rental business is certainly a commercial establishment, as it exists to provide storage space to members of the public in exchange for money.  But is Mr. Foley's unit a commercial establishment by reason if it being located within one?  Mr. Foley engaged in no commerce from within his unit and the unit was not "open" (it was locked).  The issue is not so much one of outcome, but how to get there.

The panel utilizes the California Supreme Court's recent decision in P v. Garcia, a case involving whether entry into a business' bathroom for felonious purposes constituted an additional burglary from the initial entrance into the business.  The holding was that entry into an interior room or structure can constitute an additional burglary if there is an objectively reasonable expectation of protection from intrusion relative to the larger structure.  Via analogy, not identity, with Garcia, the panel finds that Mr. Foley's unit, despite being within a commercial establishment, is a legally distinct structure (or room) for purposes of the burglary statute.  As the unit was not commercial, nor open, it does not fall under PC 459.5.  Thus, breaking into the unit to steal its contents is not shoplifting.

One can imagine many areas inside retail establishments from which a theft would implicate the holding, such as employee lockers, employee break rooms, managers' offices, and stocks rooms, to name a few.