P v. Holm (1st Dist, Div.1) A Private Country Club is a "Commercial Establishment" For Purposes of PC 459.5

In 2013, Mr. Holm entered a private country club (of which he was not a member) and stole a TV and three boxes of golf balls.  For this Holm was convicted of felony second degree burglary.

After the November 4, 2014, passage of Proposition 47, Holm petitioned the trial court, under PC 1170.18, to recall his felony conviction and resentence him for the misdemeanor crime of shoplifting.  The trial court held a hearing on the petition where the club's CEO testified the TV was worth 670 dollars and each box of golf balls 50 dollars (total value 820 dollars, under the 950 limit).  The trial court denied the petition on the basis that the private club was not a "commercial establishment" and thus Holm's crime did not fit within the definition of shoplifting in PC 459.5.  Holm appealed.

The First District reverses and remands.

The sole issue is whether a the private country club is a "commercial establishment".  This club has a golf course, a pro shop, a couple of restaurants, and a banquet hall.  The three former are only for members but the latter most can be rented by nonmembers.  

The opinion is disciplined and concise.  It declines the State's invitation to skip over the statutory text and substitute the "common understanding" of the term "shoplifting", and instead engages in a meaningful examination of the statute.  As in almost all similar opinions, the panel finds that "commercial" has the reasonably understood meaning of "engaged in the buying and selling of goods and services".  And the club does just this, providing goods through its pro shop and restaurants and services through its golf course and banquet hall.  

For good measure the panel also examines a California Supreme Court decision that found a male-only private country club was a commercial establishment for purposes of an anti-discrimination statute.  

The case is now remanded back to the trial court where, unless it finds reducing Holm's conviction to a misdemeanor would pose an unreasonable risk to public safety, it give Holm a misdemeanor.