Burglary Charges for shoplifting in CA

[JETX]

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

Okay, here we go again!! Until such time as the courts allow 'brainscans' or some other way to determine the mental decision process of a shoplifter, the issue of 'intent' can't just be the simple fact that a shoplifting occurred. There has to be SOMETHING else that has to occur in order for a 'petty theft' of shoplifing to be elevated to burglary. If it was as simple as you imply/say, the state would not have TWO separate statutes... one for 'shoplifting' and one for burglary.

 

[dreamstar101]

Thanks JETX and tijerin,
yes I live currently in GA and the shoplifting was in 1990 in California. The original charge is "Felony Arraignment" for Penal Code 459 (Burglary). The shoplifted amount was less than $ 200.--.
Is it possible that there still is a warrant out there even after 15 years?
If they charged me in absence is there any way a lawyer could get those charges reduced, maybe even dismissed?
Could I get this case re-opened with a lawyer?
I had to leave CA before my court date in 1990 because my grandmother got real sick. I know it sounds like an excuse, but it is the truth.
Any ideas to get me out of this mess? THANKS!!!!

 

[dreamstar101]

CA Shoplifting was without intent

Thanks Carl,
I appreciate all the replies. I don't know, why I got charged with the burglary. I did not intent to steal anything. I had my bankcard, my checkbook, etc. on me when I was arrested.
The security guys after stopping me, asked me a lot of questions and I had to sign some papers (I did not read them all) and I was under the assumption they let me get off with a warning since they had all their merchandise back.
But after I signed all those papers they called the police and I went to jail.
So, what can I do now? Please help! Thank you so much!

 

[tijerin]

There has to be SOMETHING else that has to occur in order for a 'petty theft' of shoplifing to be elevated to burglary. If it was as simple as you imply/say, the state would not have TWO separate statutes... one for 'shoplifting' and one for burglary.

JetX.. nothing else separates the two crimes. The simple proof of intent is the SOLE factor in elevating the crime from shoplifting to burglary. I promise.

There's a separate statute for burglary to cover ALL the ways someone could commit burglary. The statute for shoplifiting covers shoplifting. If you can PROVE intent, that's all that's necessary to elevate a charge of shoplifting to burglary. See CDWJava's previous post.

Shoplifting=entering a store and stealing something

Burglary (in the case of an elevation from shoplifting) = entering a store and stealing something where the theft was premeditated (ie. the accused entered the store with the intent to steal something (vs a spontaneous theft while in the store)

Consider the examples provided by CDWJava, or here's another example: Accused finds himself in the parking lot of a K-Mart with a dead battery. Accused does not have enough money to PURCHASE a battery, either on his person, or in the bank. Accused is detained and subsequently arrested for entering the K-Mart and stealing (or attempting to steal) a battery. The investifating officer discovers all these facts (ie. under intial questioning, the officer asks the accused why he stole the battery and the accused admits that his car had a dead battery and he didn't have enough money to buy one but he needed to get home) That would be considered burglary under all intents and purposes under California Penal Code and a clear example of intent to steal prior to entering the store. The officer would be perfectly within his right (and under statute) to arrest the individual on the charge of burgary. NOW, whether the prosecutor could, or could not, prove intent, would determine whether the accused is PROSECUTED for burglary. Chances are, the prosecutor would use the felony burglary charge (and subsequent POTENTIAL jail time) to convince the accused to accept a plea bargain down to a shoplifting conviction rather than the POTENTIAL consequences from a conviction of burglary.

In any case, I think we've beat this point to death. Truce?

 

[JETX]

In any case, I think we've beat this point to death. Truce?

Yep. As soon as you admit that most shoplifting charges are NOT elevated to burglary.... unless there is some extenuating circumstance that warrants. Agreed??

 

[calatty]

I have handled a number of shopliftings charged as burglaries. The distinguishing factor is not the value of the item, but the existence of evidence that the person planned i.e. intended the theft before entering the store. Examples include the guy who entered the store, picked out some shirts and set them aside on a table near the door, left the store, returned a short while later and grabbed the shirts off the table. Another guy came to Mervyn's with an empty Macy's shopping bag and stuffed items into the bag. Another guy shoplifted some items one day but left before they caught him, but he was caught the next day when he came back to steal some more things. I have not seen a theft charged as a burglary based only on the fact that the person entered the store with no money, probably because not having money is not proof you intend to steal. In dreamstar's case, maybe the paper he signed contained an admission by him that he entered the store with the intent to take something.

 

[tijerin]

Most shoplifting charge aren't elevated to burglaries as it's hard to prove intent sans a confession of intent or overwhelming evidence (whether actual or circumstantial) that the person entered with intent. Truce?

 

[seniorjudge]

"...Most shoplifting charge aren't elevated to burglaries as it's hard to prove intent sans a confession of intent or overwhelming evidence (whether actual or circumstantial) that the person entered with intent...."

What is "actual evidence"?