Filed 5/25/17 P. v. Caracciola CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.



IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sutter)
----



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RANAE DEEANN CARACCIOLA,

Defendant and Appellant.
C079150

(Super. Ct. No. CRF122477)




Defendant Ranae Deeann Caracciola appeals from the trial court’s order denying her petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18, enacted as part of Proposition 47. She contends that the trial court erred because the criminal conduct in her second degree burglary conviction (§ 459) constituted the crime of shoplifting (§ 459.5).
We reverse.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
We take the facts of defendant’s crime from our opinion affirming her conviction.
“On October 18, 2012, the manager at Sanchez Truck Repair & Towing reported that an unauthorized person had attempted to cash a check from his business at Harry’s Liquor but the clerk had refused to cash it. Another attempt had been made to cash a check from his business at Wilbur Market but, again, the cashier had refused to cash it. The cashier kept a copy of the check, which was dated October 3, 2012, made payable to defendant in the amount of $475. The check was not signed by anyone at the business. The cashier had also retained a copy of defendant’s identification and said the identification matched the person who had presented it.” (People v. Caracciola (Feb. 3, 2014, C074163) [nonpub. opn.] slip opn. at p. 3 (Caracciola).)
Defendant was charged with second degree burglary, uttering a bad check (§ 476), and forging a check (§ 470, subd. (d)). As to each count, it was further alleged that defendant had been released on bail at the time of the offense (§ 12022.1). Defendant pleaded no contest to all counts. (Caracciola, slip opn. at p. 4.) She received an eight-month prison term for the burglary conviction as part of a 12-year term in this and an unrelated case. (Ibid.)
Defendant subsequently filed a section 1170.18 petition for resentencing on the second degree burglary conviction. The trial court denied the petition, finding her conduct did not constitute the crime of shoplifting, rendering the conviction ineligible for resentencing.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends the trial court erred in finding her burglary conviction ineligible for section 1170.18 resentencing. We agree.
Our high court recently clarified that the definition of shoplifting in Proposition 47 includes an entry into a commercial establishment with the intent to commit any form of theft. (People v. Gonzales (2017) 2 Cal.5th 858, 862 (Gonzales) [defendant’s act of entering a bank to cash a stolen check for less than $950, traditionally regarded as a theft by false pretenses rather than larceny, now constitutes shoplifting under the statute].) Thus, defendant is entitled to resentencing under section 1170.18 enacted as part of Proposition 47.
During the hearing on the petition in the trial court, the prosecutor argued that defendant is ineligible for sentence reduction because she entered with the intent commit identity theft. (§ 530.5.) This argument was rejected by our high court in Gonzales. (Gonzales, supra, 2 Cal.5th at pp. 876-878.) Accordingly, we reject that argument here.
DISPOSITION
The trial court’s order finding defendant ineligible for resentencing on her second degree burglary conviction is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings on the petition consistent with this opinion.


MURRAY , J.

We concur:


RAYE , P. J.


HULL , J.