Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER JAMES SLOAT, Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant, Christopher James Sloat, filed a Penal Code 1 section 1170.18, subdivision (f) petition. Defendant sought to have his 2002 felony petty theft with a prior conviction (former § 666, Stats. 2000, ch. 135, § 134, p. 1991)) designated a misdemeanor. At a hearing defendant did not attend and where he was not represented by counsel, the trial court denied the petition. The trial court impliedly agreed with the prosecutor that defendant was ineligible because the theft was not from an “open commercial business.” This was an apparent reference to section 459.5, subdivision (a), which governs the crime of shoplifting. Defendant argues, and the Attorney General concedes, defendant is eligible to have his conviction under former section 666 reduced to a misdemeanor. The Attorney General states: “[D]efendant was not seeking to have his ․ conviction reduced to misdemeanor shoplifting. Rather, he sought reduction of his felony petty theft with priors conviction to misdemeanor petty theft. ․ Unlike shoplifting (§ 459.5[, subd. (a) ] ), petty theft (§ 490.2 [, subd. (a) ] ) does not require that a defendant enter a commercial establishment during regular business hours.” We agree with the Attorney General's analysis.
The order denying defendant's petition to designate as a misdemeanor his conviction for petty theft with a prior is reversed. Upon remittitur issuance, the trial court is to reconsider the petition in light of our analysis.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
FOOTNOTES
1. Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
TURNER, P.J.
We concur: KRIEGLER, J. BAKER, J.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: B270080
Decided: April 10, 2017
Court: Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)