Burglary Charges for shoplifting in CA

[dreamstar101]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? GA
I was arrested in 1990 for shoplifting in CA (less than $200.--), released on own recognizance. I was supposed to go to court for Felony arraignment a month later. Since I had left CA before the court date I didn't appear.
I have no clue if they sentenced me in absence, if I have/had a bench warrant, or what the outcome was.
Now I want to clean up my record. Where do I start? Please someone help me out! I need to get the PC 459 (burglary) reduced to a petty theft. What can I do? Thanks guys!

 

[JETX]

Where do I start? What can I do?

Start by contacting the court or a local attorney.

 

[tijerin]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? GA
I was arrested in 1990 for shoplifting in CA (less than $200.--), released on own recognizance. I was supposed to go to court for Felony arraignment a month later. Since I had left CA before the court date I didn't appear.
I have no clue if they sentenced me in absence, if I have/had a bench warrant, or what the outcome was.
Now I want to clean up my record. Where do I start? Please someone help me out! I need to get the PC 459 (burglary) reduced to a petty theft. What can I do? Thanks guys!

You can be charged with commercial burglary when you have the specific intent to steal something from a store when you walk in the door. Typically, commercial burglaries will be charged as misdemeanors when the value of the property taken is less than $400.00. If the value is over $400.00 then the burglaries will be charged as felonies.

The key issue for burglary is intent. Can the state prove that there was an intent to steal? If the state can’t prove intent to steal then charges will most likely be dismissed or the defendant will be found not guilty at trial. If the state has problems with proving intent to steal, then the case can be dismissed or settled for reduced charges and potentially zero jail or prison time.

Contact an attorney in California. My guess is he can plea bargain it down considering the dollar amount involved. I doubt they would have sentenced you in absence but they certainly would have a warrant for the original charge and for the failure to appear. Leaving the state wasn't a great idea either.

 

[JETX]

You can be charged with commercial burglary when you have the specific intent to steal something from a store when you walk in the door. Typically, commercial burglaries will be charged as misdemeanors when the value of the property taken is less than $400.00. If the value is over $400.00 then the burglaries will be charged as felonies.

HUH??? Not only is your post non-responsive to the questions posed by the OP, but....
I suggest you review the statutes again. Shoplifting is NOT burglary. The following is per the Georgia Code:
Title 16, Chapter 7, Section 1 (16-7-1)
(a) A person commits the offense of burglary when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he enters or remains within the dwelling house of another or any building, vehicle, railroad car, watercraft, or other such structure designed for use as the dwelling of another or enters or remains within any other building, railroad car, aircraft, or any room or any part thereof. A person convicted of the offense of burglary, for the first such offense, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years. For the purposes of this Code section, the term "railroad car" shall also include trailers on flatcars, containers on flatcars, trailers on railroad property, or containers on railroad property.

Title 16, Chapter 8, Section 14 (16-8-14)
(a) A person commits the offense of theft by shoplifting when he alone or in concert with another person, with the intent of appropriating merchandise to his own use without paying for the same or to deprive the owner of possession thereof or of the value thereof, in whole or in part, does any of the following:
(1) Conceals or takes possession of the goods or merchandise of any store or retail establishment;
(2) Alters the price tag or other price marking on goods or merchandise of any store or retail establishment;
(3) Transfers the goods or merchandise of any store or retail establishment from one container to another;
(4) Interchanges the label or price tag from one item of merchandise with a label or price tag for another item of merchandise; or
(5) Wrongfully causes the amount paid to be less than the merchant's stated price for the merchandise.

 

[tijerin]

HUH??? Not only is your post non-responsive to the questions posed by the OP, but....
I suggest you review the statutes again. Shoplifting is NOT burglary.

If you had read the whole post (or even the SUBJECT TITLE of the post), OP states that the CRIME was committed in California (not Georgia). Georgia is where he resides currently. Thus CALIFORNIA laws apply, since he will have to return to California to answer said charges and suffer the consequences according to CALIFORNIA law. The subject is in Georgia after fleeing the state of California. He even cites the California Penal Code section 459 as his original charge.

Thus the Georgia laws you posted are not relevant. The information I gave is accurate per CALIFORNIA law.

California Penal Code 459. Every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement,shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel, as defined in Section 21 of the Harbors and
Navigation Code, floating home, as defined in subdivision (d) of
Section 18075.55 of the Health and Safety Code, railroad car, locked
or sealed cargo container, whether or not mounted on a vehicle,
trailer coach, as defined in Section 635 of the Vehicle Code, any
house car, as defined in Section 362 of the Vehicle Code, inhabited
camper, as defined in Section 243 of the Vehicle Code, vehicle as
defined by the Vehicle Code, when the doors are locked, aircraft as
defined by Section 21012 of the Public Utilities Code, or mine or any
underground portion thereof, with intent to commit grand or petit
larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary. As used in this
chapter, "inhabited" means currently being used for dwelling
purposes, whether occupied or not. A house, trailer, vessel designed
for habitation, or portion of a building is currently being used for
dwelling purposes if, at the time of the burglary, it was not
occupied solely because a natural or other disaster caused the
occupants to leave the premises.

 

[JETX]

If you had read the whole post (or even the SUBJECT TITLE of the post), OP states that the CRIME was committed in California (not Georgia). Georgia is where he resides currently. Thus CALIFORNIA laws apply, since he will have to return to California to answer said charges and suffer the consequences according to CALIFORNIA law.

Thus the Georgia laws you posted are not relevant. The information I gave is accurate per CALIFORNIA law.

You are correct. I misread the post.

So, with that, here is where you are still wrong.... per the California Penal code, shoplifting is theft. The Code for theft is:
484. (a) Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry, lead, or drive away the personal property of another, or who shall fraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him or her, or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of money, labor or real or personal property, or who causes or procures others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character and by thus imposing upon any person, obtains credit and thereby fraudulently gets or obtains possession of money, or property or obtains the labor or service of another, is guilty of theft.

And burglary:
459. Every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel, as defined in Section 21 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, floating home, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 18075.55 of the Health and Safety Code, railroad car, locked or sealed cargo container, whether or not mounted on a vehicle, trailer coach, as defined in Section 635 of the Vehicle Code, any house car, as defined in Section 362 of the Vehicle Code, inhabited camper, as defined in Section 243 of the Vehicle Code, vehicle as defined by the Vehicle Code, when the doors are locked, aircraft as defined by Section 21012 of the Public Utilities Code, or mine or any underground portion thereof, with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary. As used in this chapter, "inhabited" means currently being used for dwelling purposes, whether occupied or not. A house, trailer, vessel designed for habitation, or portion of a building is currently being used for dwelling purposes if, at the time of the burglary, it was not occupied solely because a natural or other disaster caused the occupants to leave the premises.

 

[tijerin]

I think you are misinterpreting the Penal Code.

459. Every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel, as defined in Section 21 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, floating home, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 18075.55 of the Health and Safety Code, railroad car, locked or sealed cargo container, whether or not mounted on a vehicle, trailer coach, as defined in Section 635 of the Vehicle Code, any house car, as defined in Section 362 of the Vehicle Code, inhabited camper, as defined in Section 243 of the Vehicle Code, vehicle as defined by the Vehicle Code, when the doors are locked, aircraft as defined by Section 21012 of the Public Utilities Code, or mine or any underground portion thereof, with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary. As used in this chapter, "inhabited" means currently being used for dwelling purposes, whether occupied or not. A house, trailer, vessel designed for habitation, or portion of a building is currently being used for dwelling purposes if, at the time of the burglary, it was not occupied solely because a natural or other disaster caused the occupants to leave the premises.

He entered a "shop" with "intent" to commit EITHER grand larceny or petit larceny.

Having worked in Loss Prevention, I've seen many "shoplifters" charged with "burglary" when intent can be proven.

Prosecutors rountinely file burglary charges when charging a person with theft. California Penal Code Section 459 defines burglary as entering a structure with the intent to commit a grand or petit larceny (theft). This requires the prosecutor to show that a person entered a structure already having the intent or plan to take property from inside. Burglary does not apply when the idea to deprive an owner of property is formed when already inside the structure. Burglary is punishable by up to one year in county jail when the structure involved is not an inhabited dwelling. C.P.C. 461. However, when the structure is an inhabited dwelling, burglary is in the first degree and is punishable by state prison for a minimum of two years and a maximum of six years. Id. This amount of jail time is in addition to that of the theft crime.

Again, the OP claims that while he only "shoplifted" merchandise, he was CHARGED with burglary under PC 459. So, in conclusion, the PROSECTOR decided that the charge of burglary would apply, rather than the charge of shoplifting.

OP's DEFENSE would be that he had no intent to steal prior to entering the store.

Also, while I've seen many people charged with burglary due to shoplifting, INTENT is very difficult to prove so I've seen many of the burglary charges plea-bargained done to shoplifting.

 

[JETX]

I think you are misinterpreting the Penal Code.

I'm not. You are the one making the 'leap to conclusion' that this shoplifting case will be elevated to burglary charges.

Prosecutors rountinely file burglary charges when charging a person with theft. California Penal Code Section 459 defines burglary as entering a structure with the intent to commit a grand or petit larceny (theft).

Yes, I have also seen 'normal' shoplifting charges be elevated to burglary, but I have NEVER seen that happen without extenuating circumstances. Most often when the subject has been overly aggressive in assault.... or has multiple counts.

 

[tijerin]

I'm not. You are the one making the 'leap to conclusion' that this shoplifting case will be elevated to burglary charges.

There is no ELEVATING relevant here. The OP has already been CHARGED with burglary and had an arraignment scheduled to which he didn't show. I've never said that he would be CONVICTED of burglary as intent is hard to prove. HOWEVER, if the prosecutor can successfully prove INTENT to steal prior to entering, then OP would be found guilty of burglary.

I need to get the PC 459 (burglary) reduced to a petty theft.

Again, to reiterate, the OP has already been charged with burglary per PC 459, not shoplifting! There's no elevation going on here. He even states in his original post that he's seeking advice on how to REDUCE the CHARGE of BURGLARY to petty theft.

 

[JETX]

There is no ELEVATING relevant here. The OP has already been CHARGED with burglary and had an arraignment scheduled to which he didn't show. I've never said that he would be CONVICTED of burglary as intent is hard to prove. HOWEVER, if the prosecutor can successfully prove INTENT to steal prior to entering, then OP would be found guilty of burglary.

Again, to reiterate, the OP has already been charged with burglary per PC 459, not shoplifting! There's no elevation going on here. He even states in his original post that he's seeking advice on how to REDUCE the CHARGE of BURGLARY to petty theft.

You are correct. For some reason (Alzheimer's?) I pretty much misread the Original Post and allowed that confusion to taint my interpretation of this entire thread. I should have recognized the senility when I confused the Georgia-California fact.

Note to self: Do not try to respond while watching Super Bowl pregame sports shows with one eye, while trying to read with the other!!

 

[CdwJava]

Entering the business with the intent to commit the "petit theft" IS a burglary in CA per PC 459. It is frequently charged when the person arrested for shoplifting has demonstrated in some way that they entered without intending to shop but wit hthe intent to steal something - indeed, to steal anything.

I have seen these cases made on simple statements, possession of false bottom handbags, possession of empty store bags when they enter, no money or other forms of payment in possession, etc.

Also, since the OP stated that she was facing felony burglary charges and even posted the Penal Code section of 459, I think it is safe to assume that the original offense that she was to be arraigned on was for burglary. But, as has been said by everyone, it is likely that the case can be dropped to petty theft if the value of the theft was less than $400 and the intent issue is arguable.

But, an attorney is necessary to do any of this. And any felony warrant will dog the OP for years to come ... and can prevent government aid and good jobs.

- Carl

 

[tijerin]

You are correct. For some reason (Alzheimer's?) I pretty much misread the Original Post and allowed that confusion to taint my interpretation of this entire thread. I should have recognized the senility when I confused the Georgia-California fact.

Note to self: Do not try to respond while watching Super Bowl pregame sports shows with one eye, while trying to read with the other!!

It's cool. I'm sure you know much more about the law than I do. i just try to be helpful when I can by researching laws and issues and trying to post relevant, correct information to the original posters. I NEVER have any problem with someone correcting any mistakes I make. Your posts are usually right on the money and I would normally defer to your advice as I am not an attorney. I just knew I was correct in this matter, which was why I pursued it with you. (Which was quite fun) Maybe I should go to law school and become a lawyer..but then...I hate school (even though I tend to do well in it)..

 

[seniorjudge]

...Note to self: Do not try to respond while watching Super Bowl pregame sports shows with one eye, while trying to read with the other!!...

You know, JETX, I ... uh ... yeah.

Senior Moment Judge

 

[JETX]

I just knew I was correct in this matter, which was why I pursued it with you.

I will say this though....
I agree with cdw.... in that there is likely something that caused the DA to elevate what would normally have been a simple shoplifting matter to that of a felony burglary. And that WAS in my post... and the reason that I disagreed on your initial post.

 

[tijerin]

I agree ... it's called "intent"