Filed 4/3/18 P. v. Chestnut 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Shasta)
----



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANDREA KILIE CHESNUT,

Defendant and Appellant.
C080714

(Super. Ct. No. 08F7250)




Defendant Andrea Kilie Chesnut appeals from the denial of her Penal Code section 1170.18 petition to reclassify one of her convictions for second degree burglary (§ 459) as a misdemeanor. She contends the trial court erred in finding the crime was not eligible for reclassification. We shall reverse and remand for additional proceedings.
BACKGROUND
On April 22, 2008, defendant used a business credit card belonging to her boyfriend to make withdrawals and purchases from various businesses over a period of two days totaling $1,414.55.
On September 24, 2008, defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of second degree commercial burglary, with Metro PCS as the victim in count 1 and Walmart as the victim in count 2. The trial court placed defendant on five years’ formal probation on November 14, 2008. Her probation was subsequently revoked and the trial court sentenced her on this and several unrelated cases to a five-year four-month state prison term. The trial court recalled the sentence and subsequently imposed a five-year state prison term on September 18, 2009.
On May 5, 2015, defendant filed two section 1170.18 petitions, one for each of her offenses. The People filed responses agreeing defendant was eligible for relief for the count 1 offense, but claiming the second degree burglary conviction in count 2 was not eligible for designation as a misdemeanor. This response did not assert that the value of the property in question did not exceed $950. The trial court granted the petition as to count 1 and denied it as to count 2 for the reason asserted in the People’s response.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends the trial court erred in finding her ineligible for section 1170.18 resentencing on the second degree burglary conviction in count 2. We agree.
In a case decided after briefing, our high court 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 [the 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].)
It appears from this very scant record that the trial court denied the petition as to count 2 because the crime did not constitute shoplifting. Since it also appears that defendant’s crime in count 2 was obtaining goods from Walmart through theft by false pretenses, the trial court’s ruling that this type of offense is ineligible for relief, is incorrect. Since the trial court apparently did not determine whether defendant met the $950 or less value threshold for eligibility (see § 459.5, subd. (a)), we shall reverse and remand for additional proceedings.
DISPOSITION
The trial court’s order denying relief as to the second degree burglary conviction in count 2 is reversed and the matter is remanded for additional proceedings consistent with this opinion.


RAYE , P. J.


We concur:



HULL , J.


HOCH , J.