No, misuse of ID info is not shoplifting

California’s Proposition 47 created a new offense of shoplifting to deal with the overreach of charging people with burglary when they only walked in the open door of an open store to steal something, a crime which should have been charged as theft.

A creative defendant charged with misuse of personal information tried to get his crime reclassified as shoplifting, and a Court of Appeal panel actually bought that. Today, the California Supreme Court unanimously reversed.

What we must decide here is whether a felony conviction for misuse of personal identifying information under section 530.5, subdivision (a) can be reduced to misdemeanor shoplifting under Proposition 47, which was approved by voters in the November 4, 2014 General Election. We hold that it cannot. Proposition 47 added section 459.5 to the Penal Code, which dictates that an “act of shoplifting . . . shall be charged as shoplifting,” and that “[n]o person who is charged with shoplifting may also be charged with burglary or theft of the same property.” (§ 459.5, subd. (b).) Its prohibition applies only to “burglary or theft” offenses. (Ibid.) Although misuse of identifying information is sometimes colloquially described as “identity theft,” the language, context, and history of section 530.5, subdivision (a) tells us no “burglary or theft” offense is committed by virtue of a defendant violating that statute.

The case is People v. Jimenez, S249397, reversing 22 Cal.App.5th 1282