People v. Gonzales
California Supreme Court
2 Cal. 5th 858, 392 P.3d 437 (2017)
- Written by Kelli Lanski, JD
Facts
Giovanni Gonzales (defendant) stole his grandmother’s checkbook and made two visits to a local bank. During each trip he cashed one of her checks made out to him for $125. Gonzales’s grandmother had not signed the checks or authorized him to cash them. Gonzales was indicted for burglary, a felony charge, and pleaded guilty. He later challenged his sentence, arguing that his conduct was at most a misdemeanor punishable under California’s shoplifting law. That law defined shoplifting as entering a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny if the value of the property that was taken or intended to be taken did not exceed $950. The law classified any other entry into a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny as burglary. It was drafted to punish nonserious, nonviolent crimes like petty theft and drug possession as misdemeanors, not felonies. Gonzales argued that his conduct should have been prosecuted as the misdemeanor crime of shoplifting because the bank was a commercial establishment and the checks were for $125. The state argued that Gonzales’s conduct did not meet the common definition of shoplifting—taking goods from a store—and burglary charges were appropriate. The trial court denied the petition, and the appellate court affirmed that ruling.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Corrigan, J.)
Dissent (Chin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
