Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SCD207013, John S. Einhorn, Judge.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
Following a bench trial, the court convicted Brandon Butcher of residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459 ) and petty theft with a prior (§§ 484, 666). The court sentenced Butcher to prison for two years for the burglary. The court also sentenced Butcher to 16 months for the petty theft, but stayed that sentence under section 654.
Statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
Butcher's sole issue on appeal is whether substantial evidence supports a finding he had the intent to steal or commit a felony upon entering the apartment. We affirm the judgment.
FACTS
In February 2007, Sean Haggerty temporarily moved back into a two-bedroom apartment he formerly shared with Thomas Golden. Golden had taken over the entire rent and occupied the apartment.
A month after returning, Haggerty met Butcher and developed a mentor-like friendship. During that time, Haggerty helped Butcher apply to the Social Security Administration Office to obtain disability income (SSI). While awaiting the SSI check, Butcher found a truck he wanted to buy and asked Haggerty to loan him the $500 purchase price. Haggerty agreed and took title of the truck as a lien holder. Haggerty and Butcher agreed that Butcher would register the truck in Butcher's name and obtain insurance for it. Further, Butcher would repay the loan when he began receiving SSI payments. Just after purchase, Butcher was stopped at a checkpoint on Interstate 8 and the truck was impounded. Haggerty paid $270 to have the truck released and towed to Butcher's grandparent's house, where it would remain until Butcher cleared up his license.
Haggerty later placed the truck in trust for Butcher, and gave a set of keys to Butcher, Butcher's grandparents and Butcher's aunt. After the truck repeatedly appeared in various places, forcing Haggerty to retrieve it, Haggerty parked the truck in an undisclosed location. Haggerty told Butcher he would not give him access to the truck until Butcher had satisfied his obligations.
Butcher began dropping by Haggerty and Golden's apartment looking for his truck. On three occasions, Golden answered the door and informed Butcher that Haggerty was not home. Golden never permitted Butcher to enter the apartment during these visits; however, on one occasion Golden let Butcher use his cell phone, which Golden generally kept wrapped in green plastic wrap.
In late April 2007, Haggerty told Butcher that he was moving to Utah for work. Haggerty left the apartment in early May 2007, leaving Golden and some of his belongings behind. When Haggerty left, the truck remained stored in an undisclosed location in Imperial Beach.
On the morning of May 23, 2007, Golden was asleep in his apartment. Golden's next door neighbor, Caitlin Flourie, noticed Butcher near the apartment complex around 6:40 a.m. When she left her apartment 35 minutes later, she saw Butcher seated in a chair facing Golden's front door. Flourie returned to her apartment a few minutes later, and Butcher asked Flourie if she had seen "Sean" lately. Flourie told Butcher she did not know Sean. Another resident of the apartment complex, Cecil Reeder, also noticed Butcher that morning. Reeder had seen Butcher pacing in front of the complex around 8:00 a.m. and around 30 minutes later saw Butcher seated near Golden's apartment.
Around 10:00 a.m., Golden awoke to find one of his kitchen knives lying on the floor near the front door. After seeing his $2,000 laptop and $600 guitar still in the apartment, Golden continued on his morning routine. When Golden went to retrieve his cell phone he noticed that it, along with his MP-3 player (also generally covered in green plastic wrap), was missing. Golden also could not find a handmade box containing 12 silver rings and a medallion. All three items had been within a few feet of each other.
Golden called the police and as he left the apartment, he noticed the screen on a window near the front door was bent. Golden, who did maintenance work for the complex, knew that the screen was intact the night before. Golden often left the window next to the front door open, and someone standing on a chair could easily reach in and unlock the door.
As a result of the police investigation, Guillermo Lopez, Butcher's parole agent, arrested Butcher after he voluntarily reported to Lopez. Lopez transported Butcher to jail where San Diego Police Detective Donald Williams interviewed him. After waiving his rights, Butcher told Williams he had gone to the apartment complex to speak with Haggerty. Butcher wanted to either have his truck returned or be paid its value. Butcher said he knocked on the door several times but no one answered. Eventually, Butcher noticed the screen was pushed in and he reached through and unlocked the door. Butcher told Williams he entered the apartment to look for the keys to the truck, but got scared and left a few seconds later. Upon leaving, Butcher grabbed some rings, a phone and a radio to let Haggerty know he had been there. During the 20 to 30 minute interview, Williams noticed that Butcher became more and more distraught, eventually telling Williams he was "so fucked." Butcher also told Williams he could not remember what he did with the phone and MP-3 player, but that he threw the rings away.
Following the interview with Williams, Butcher called Haggerty multiple times from jail. On one occasion, Butcher told Haggerty he had been high on drugs and angry about the truck. Butcher told Haggerty he was afraid he would get "six years and a strike" and asked Haggerty to speak with Golden. Butcher also asked Haggerty to say Butcher had permission to enter the apartment and offered to pay back Golden for "whatever [he had] grabbed." He also asked Haggerty to see if Golden would say Golden was not in the apartment at the time of the burglary.
DISCUSSION
Butcher challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's finding he had the intent to steal or commit a felony upon entering Golden's apartment. We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction under the well-settled substantial evidence standard. "[W]e review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence--that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value--from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." (People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 66, citing Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 317-320.) We do not reweigh the evidence, nor do we make credibility determinations; the trier of fact makes such determinations. (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206.) "The standard of appellate review is the same in cases in which the People rely primarily on circumstantial evidence." (People v. Bean (1988) 46 Cal.3d 919, 932.)
Burglary requires an entry into a specified structure with the intent to commit a theft or any felony therein. (§ 459; People v. Tafoya (2007) 42 Cal.4th 147, 170.) A defendant's intent to commit a theft or felony must exist at the time of entering the structure. (People v. Gbadebo-Soda (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 160, 167.) Because direct evidence of specific intent is seldom available in burglary prosecutions, proof is often almost entirely circumstantial. (People v. Wolfe (1967) 257 Cal.App.2d 420, 425.) Intent may be inferred from the totality of all the facts and circumstances. (People v. Matson (1974) 13 Cal.3d 35, 41.) Thus, unlawful entry into a building, flight after being discovered, or entry through a door or window that had previously been locked without a reasonable explanation, may warrant a conclusion that the person had the intent to commit a theft. (People v. Jordan (1962) 204 Cal.App.2d 782, 786.)
Here, Butcher asserts that viewing the totality of the evidence, no reasonable trier of fact could have found he had the intent to commit a theft at the time he entered the apartment. In doing so, Butcher appears to view the facts in a light most favorable to him. However, under the proper standard of review, substantial evidence supports the conviction. Butcher unlawfully entered Golden's apartment through a previously locked door, without reasonable explanation. Although Butcher asserts he entered the apartment to speak with Haggerty, Haggerty had told Butcher nearly a month earlier he was moving to Utah. Further, Butcher waited in front of the apartment for at least two hours, and by his own account to Williams, knocked several times on the door. Butcher's explanation that he entered the apartment to confront Haggerty about his truck is unreasonable based on these facts.
Even though unlawful entry without reasonable explanation may be sufficient to support a finding of intent to commit a theft, other circumstances also support Butcher's conviction. Butcher told both Haggerty and Williams that he was angry about his truck. As the trial court explained, it is impossible to guess what other thoughts Butcher had when he appeared at Golden's apartment that morning. Instead, the court properly considered Butcher's intent when he finally decided to enter Golden's apartment. Butcher reasonably could have entered the apartment to steal items to compensate for his perceived loss of his truck. Butcher told Williams that he believed he was entitled to the truck or its value. Butcher said he took items he thought would show Haggerty that he had come to the apartment. This explanation is equally unreasonable, as Butcher had used Golden's cell phone, distinctive in its green plastic wrap, on an earlier occasion. Moreover, it is unclear how taking the items would alert Haggerty to Butcher's presence. Substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that Butcher broke into Golden's apartment to steal.
In his reply brief, Butcher repeatedly relies on People v. Blakeslee (1969) 2 Cal.App.3d 831, where the court reversed the defendant's murder conviction because of the lack of substantial evidence. Butcher's reliance on Blakeslee is misplaced. In Blakeslee, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District found the evidence linking the defendant to her mother's murder was not solid or substantial. (Id. at pp. 837-840). The court explained that an equally plausible case could have been made against the defendant's brother; and, along with the lack of physical evidence, the evidence presented at trial did not inspire confidence in the judgment. (Id. at p. 840.) Butcher suggests that a similar lack of evidence exists in the present case, and that the evidence presented does not lead to any reasonable inference that he harbored the required intent. The decision in Blakeslee can easily be distinguished from the present case. The sole issue on appeal is whether substantial evidence exists to uphold the trial court's ruling that Butcher entered the apartment with the intent to commit larceny. Proof of intent rarely involves physical evidence, and instead, requires inferences from circumstantial evidence. The court in Blakeslee focused on the entire murder conviction, not just the intent element. "When we decide issues of sufficiency of evidence, comparison with other cases is of limited utility, since each case necessarily depends on its own facts." (People v. Thomas (1992) 2 Cal.4th 489, 516.) Whatever such a comparison is worth, here the evidence reasonably supports the trial court's findings and so we uphold the judgment on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: NARES, J., O'ROURKE, J.