Legal Opinion

People v. Hallam

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 29, 2016No. B266185PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

LUI, J.—

In this appeal we consider whether the entry during business hours into a commercial establishment’s employee restroom to commit larceny qualifies as “shoplifting” under Penal Code 1 section 459.5 as enacted by the voters in Proposition 47. We conclude that it does.

Nicholas Hallam appeals an order denying his petition for resentencing/ application to redesignate his felony conviction for second degree burglary as misdemeanor shoplifting pursuant to Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (Proposition 47 or the Act). (§§ 1170.18, subds. (a)-(e), (f)-(i), 459.5.)…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. People v. RiveraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  2. Horwich v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Smith v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
  4. People v. ParkCalifornia Supreme Court · 2013
  5. People v. RizoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. People v. ColbertCalifornia Supreme Court · 2019
  2. People v. BunyardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
  3. In re E.P.California Court of Appeal · 2018
  4. In re E.P.California Court of Appeal · 2019
  5. In re E.P.California Court of Appeal · 2018

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API