Opinion
G051741
03-22-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ADRIENNE NUNN, Defendant and Appellant.
Russell S. Babcock, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Kelley Johnson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 03CF2225) OPINION Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Thomas A. Glazier, Judge. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. Russell S. Babcock, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Kelley Johnson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellant Adrienne Nunn contends the trial court erred in failing to reduce her felony convictions for second degree commercial burglary to misdemeanor shoplifting under Proposition 47. We agree.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2003, appellant was sentenced to prison after pleading guilty to two counts of second degree commercial burglary and one count of fraudulent use a credit card. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (b); 484g.) Twelve years later, after the passage of Proposition 47, she petitioned to have her convictions reduced to misdemeanors. (See Pen. Code, § 1170.18.) The prosecution opposed the petition on the basis appellant's conduct - using a stolen credit card to acquire hotel rooms - was outside the scope of Proposition 47. The trial court granted appellant's request with respect to her conviction for fraudulent use of a credit card but otherwise denied her petition.
DISCUSSION
Appellant contends her burglary convictions qualify for a reduction because the conduct underlying them fits within the definition of misdemeanor shoplifting, which was added to the Penal Code pursuant to Proposition 47. (See Pen. Code, § 459.5.) In a companion case filed along with this opinion, we considered the same contention with respect to a trio of burglary convictions that appellant suffered in 2006. (See People v. Nunn (Mar. 22, 2017, G051742) [nonpub. opn.] (Nunn I).) Appellant's burglaries in that case were similar to the ones at issue here, in that they were based on appellant using a stolen credit card to procure hotel rooms. Although respondent argued those convictions did not warrant a reduction to misdemeanor shoplifting in that case, we disagreed and reversed the trial court's finding in that regard. (Id. at pp. 3-6, 8.) In opposing a similar reduction here, respondent tenders the same arguments it did in Nunn I. For the reasons explained in that case, we find appellant's burglary convictions qualify for a reduction to misdemeanor shoplifting under Proposition 47. (Ibid.)
DISPOSITION
The trial court's order regarding appellant's petition for relief under Proposition 47 is reversed to the extent it denied appellant's request to reduce her burglary convictions to misdemeanors. In all other respects, the order is affirmed.
BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J. WE CONCUR: MOORE, J. THOMPSON, J.