Court Rules Change in Petty Theft Limit is Retroactive Turning Certain Grand Theft Conviction into Petty Theft
April 18, 2012 By Greg Hill & Associates
In 2010, the California Legislature amended Penal Code § 487 to increase the amount of property fitting the definition of petty theft. The amount was of property increased from $400 to $950. Any theft valued at $950 or below is consequently now petty theft; any theft of property with value above $950 is grand theft.
Often, when such an amendment is written, the provisions address retroactive application of the proposed law. Here, no such provisions in the amendment discussed retroactive application.
In the case of People v. Clenard Ebron Wade (2012 DJDAR 4510), the First Appellate District was asked to determine how the new limit would apply to Mr. Wade, who allegedly stole $700 in 2008, but his conviction had not become final as of 2012. The court decided the new provision of § 487 would apply retro actively. In other words, while $700 would be grand theft in 2008, as it was above $400 when the offense occurred, the First Appellate District considered the offense petty theft instead because the amended limits on petty theft were increased to $950.
The underlying events leading to Mr. Wade’s appeal were not a simple case with only an alleged theft of $700. Wade was charged in Costa County Superior Court with twenty-three counts, with offenses ranging from robbery (Penal Code § 211), battery causing serious bodily injury (Penal Code §§ 242, 243 (d)), domestic violence (Penal Code § 273.5 (a)), criminal threats (Penal Code § 422), assault with a firearm (Penal Code § 245), false imprisonment by violence (Penal Code § 236, 237 (a)), being a felon in possession of a firearm (Penal Code § 12021 (a) (1)), residential burglary (Penal Code § 459, 460 (a)), forcible sexual penetration (Penal Code § 289), forcible oral copulation (Penal Code § 288 (a)), forcible rape (Penal Code § 261 (a) (2)) and grand theft (Penal Code § 487).
All charges arose out of a single evening’s activities lasting perhaps ten minutes. The grand theft allegedly occurred when Wade took $700 from his former girlfriend’s purse after raping her, etc., as suggested by the charges described.
In other words, the reduction of Wade’s grand theft conviction to petty theft did not have much practical benefit to Wade. After all, Wade was sentenced to prison for 33 years and eight months to life for his convictions on most of the above charges.
In evaluating whether it could apply the increased petty theft limit retroactively (alternatively, the minimum amount for grand theft), the First Appellate District looked to other statutes that did not address retro-activity, and how California courts have decided the issue. In looking at petty theft with a prior (Penal Code § 666) and how the statute was amended as well as other court’s determination that the amended section 666 did apply retroactively, (People v. Vixen (2011) 193 Cal. App. 4th 1190), the court reasoned 487 also apply retroactively.
Consequently, the Appellate court modified the judgment to reflect a conviction of the lesser included offense of petty theft (Penal Code § § 484, 488) and remanded Mr. Wade’s case back to the trial court for sentencing.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Greg Hill, Greg Hill and Associates
This short article was written by Greg Hill of Greg Hill & Associates in Torrance, California. Greg Hill & Associates defends those accused of all crimes, both felonies and misdemeanors in state and federal court. A large majority of the cases we handle involve DUI, domestic violence, violation of protective orders and drugs, however, we have broad experience defending those accused of other crimes as well. Greg Hill is a former Marine Officer. He is a U.S. Naval Academy graduate (B.S., 1987), Boston University graduate (M.B.A., 1994) and Loyola Law School graduate (J.D., 1998).
Copyright Greg Hill & Associates
More information about Greg Hill & Associates
Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.
In the case of People v. Clenard Ebron Wade (2012 DJDAR 4510), the First Appellate District was asked to determine how the new limit would apply to Mr. Wade, who allegedly stole $700 in 2008, but his conviction had not become final as of 2012. The court decided the new provision of § 487 would apply retro actively. In other words, while $700 would be grand theft in 2008, as it was above $400 when the offense occurred, the First Appellate District considered the offense petty theft instead because the amended limits on petty theft were increased to $950.
The underlying events leading to Mr. Wade’s appeal were not a simple case with only an alleged theft of $700. Wade was charged in Costa County Superior Court with twenty-three counts, with offenses ranging from robbery (Penal Code § 211), battery causing serious bodily injury (Penal Code §§ 242, 243 (d)), domestic violence (Penal Code § 273.5 (a)), criminal threats (Penal Code § 422), assault with a firearm (Penal Code § 245), false imprisonment by violence (Penal Code § 236, 237 (a)), being a felon in possession of a firearm (Penal Code § 12021 (a) (1)), residential burglary (Penal Code § 459, 460 (a)), forcible sexual penetration (Penal Code § 289), forcible oral copulation (Penal Code § 288 (a)), forcible rape (Penal Code § 261 (a) (2)) and grand theft (Penal Code § 487).
All charges arose out of a single evening’s activities lasting perhaps ten minutes. The grand theft allegedly occurred when Wade took $700 from his former girlfriend’s purse after raping her, etc., as suggested by the charges described.
In other words, the reduction of Wade’s grand theft conviction to petty theft did not have much practical benefit to Wade. After all, Wade was sentenced to prison for 33 years and eight months to life for his convictions on most of the above charges.
In evaluating whether it could apply the increased petty theft limit retroactively (alternatively, the minimum amount for grand theft), the First Appellate District looked to other statutes that did not address retro-activity, and how California courts have decided the issue. In looking at petty theft with a prior (Penal Code § 666) and how the statute was amended as well as other court’s determination that the amended section 666 did apply retroactively, (People v. Vixen (2011) 193 Cal. App. 4th 1190), the court reasoned 487 also apply retroactively.
Consequently, the Appellate court modified the judgment to reflect a conviction of the lesser included offense of petty theft (Penal Code § § 484, 488) and remanded Mr. Wade’s case back to the trial court for sentencing.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Greg Hill, Greg Hill and Associates
This short article was written by Greg Hill of Greg Hill & Associates in Torrance, California. Greg Hill & Associates defends those accused of all crimes, both felonies and misdemeanors in state and federal court. A large majority of the cases we handle involve DUI, domestic violence, violation of protective orders and drugs, however, we have broad experience defending those accused of other crimes as well. Greg Hill is a former Marine Officer. He is a U.S. Naval Academy graduate (B.S., 1987), Boston University graduate (M.B.A., 1994) and Loyola Law School graduate (J.D., 1998).
Copyright Greg Hill & Associates
More information about Greg Hill & Associates
View all articles published by Greg Hill & Associates
Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.
