No clann to oviging) US. Government Works. WESTLAW ©2016 Thomsc sees § 459.5. Shoplifting, CA PENAL § 459.5 2 ‘ KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment Proposed Legislation West's Annotated California Codes Penal Code (Refs & Annos)} Part 1. Of Crimes and Punishments (Refs & Annos) Title 13. Of Crimes Against Property (Refs & Annos) Chapter 2. Burglary (Refs & Annos) West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 459.5 § 459.5. Shoplifting Effective: November5, 2014 Currentness (a) Notwithstanding Section 459, shoplifting is defined as entering a commercial establishmentwith intent to commit larceny while that establishment is open during regular business hours, where the value of the property that is taken or intendedto be taken doesnot exceed nine hundredfifty dollars ($950). Any other entry into a commercialestablishmentwith intent to commit larceny is burglary.

(IRTS 224-225.) The prosecutor also presented evidence which demonstrated that appellant had five prior felony convictions, including convictions for attempted residential burglary (§§ 664/459), possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350), cocaine sales (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352), robbery (§ 211), and second degree burglary (§ 459). (2CT 332; see CAT 816-850.) In addition, appellant had pleaded guilty to nearly one dozen armed robberiesprior to the guilt phase trial.

There was a stipulation that the officer interviewed Nathan Bunting on March 26, 1998, and he drew a picture of a suspect with a tattoo on the right rear side of the subject’s neck. (14 RT 3401.) On October 16, 2001, the jury found appellant guilty on all counts: Count 1, murder, in violation ofPenal Code Section 187; Count2, the murder was committed while engaged in a robbery, a violation ofPenal Code Section -33- 211; Count3, first degree burglary, a violation ofPenal Code Section 459 and 460; and Count4, taking of a vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code Section 10851. (15 RT 3688-3689.)

” (People v. Sherow (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 875, 879, 191 Cal.Rptr.3d 295.) Section 459.5, subdivision (a), provides: “Notwithstanding Section 459, shoplifting is defined as entering a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny while that establishment is open during regular business hours, where the value of the property that is taken or intended to be taken does not exceed nine hundredfifty dollars ($950). Any other entry into a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny is burglary.

In appellant’s case, his murder conviction — although involving moral turpitude — had no direct bearing on his honesty or integrity, and thus its probative value on his credibility was limited. 2’ His burglary conviction wassimilarly limited in probative value, because(as the trial court conceded) the court did not know whether it was for entry with intent to commit larceny, a theft-related crime, or with intent to commit some other crime, both of which constitute burglary under California Penal Code section 459, 2¥ Onthe prejudicial effect side, an equally important factor is whetherthe prior conviction is for the same or similar conduct as the 20. Cf. People v. Woodard, supra, 23 Cal. 3d at 340: “The voluntary manslaughter conviction established the commission of a violent act, which may, at the most, have indicated a character for violence...It cannot be inferred from the commission of a violent act that he wasalso disposedto falsify.”

M.A., Curriculum Vitae 129 Declaration of Pablo Stewart, M.D.; Curriculum Vitae 130 Declaration of Craig Haney, Ph.D., J.D.; Curriculum Vitae; Appendix of Declarations Pages PE 1152 - 1193 PE 1194 - 1216 PE 1217 - 1227 PE 1228 - 1286 PE 1287 - 1431 V72377019.1 xlvii A/723770 I 9 I xlvifi TO THE HONORABLE RONALD M. GEORGE, CHIEF JUSTICE OF CALIFORNIA, AND TO THE HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA: Petitioner, ABELINO MANRIQUEZ ("Petitioner"), by and through undersigned counsel, petitions this Court for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and by this verified petition alleges as follows: I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND 1. By information filed April 26, 1991, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Petitioner was charged with seven counts of murder under section 187, subdivision (a) (Counts I-VII), three counts of attempted residential robbery under California Penal Code sections 211 and 664 (Counts VIII-X), and one count of residential burglary under section 459 (Count XI).' CT 653-66.

(id. at p. 629.) In reaching this conclusion, this court also looked to People v. Goodwin (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 940, 944, where the verdict forms found the defendant "guilty of residential burglary, in violation of Penal Code section 459, a Felony, as charged in Count I of the information." Goodwin held that "section 1157 does not apply . . . because the verdict forms did not find Appellant guilty simply of burglary without any indication of the degree."