Archive

Archive for February, 2016

No new cases Monday

February 26, 2016 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases Monday.

Advertisements

Multiple entries are usually not multiple burglaries

February 25, 2016 Comments off

Multiple entries are usually not multiple burglaries

Section 459 of the Penal Code provides, in part, that “[e]very person who enters any house, room, . . . shop, warehouse, store, . . . or other building . . . with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary.” In this case, defendant Hugo Garcia (Garcia) entered a commercial store in Escondido, California with the intent to commit a robbery inside. After accomplishing the robbery, Garcia took the robbery victim — a store employee — to a bathroom in the back of the business, bound her hands, and raped her. The jury convicted Garcia of aggravated kidnapping, forcible rape, and two burglaries, among other offenses. The two burglary convictions were based on the theory that Garcia’s entry into the store with the intent to commit a robbery, followed by his entry into the store’s bathroom with the intent to rape, constituted two burglaries rather than one. The Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions.

What we conclude is this: the simple fact that a defendant has committed two entries with felonious intent into a structure and a room within that structure does not permit multiple burglary convictions. Where a burglar enters a structure enumerated under section 459 with the requisite felonious intent, and then subsequently enters a room within that structure with such intent, the burglar may be charged with multiple burglaries only if the subsequently entered room provides a separate and objectively reasonable expectation of protection from intrusion relative to the larger structure. Such a separate expectation of privacy and safety may exist where there is proof that the internal space is owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise possessed by a distinct entity; or that the room or space is secured against the rest of the space within the structure, making the room similar in nature to the stand-alone structures enumerated in section 459.

Though the facts are somewhat close in this case, the evidence of the bathroom’s location and characteristics is insufficient to show that it provided to its occupants a separate and reasonable expectation of protection from intrusion and danger, beyond that provided by the shop itself. We therefore reverse the Court of Appeal’s judgment upholding Garcia’s dual burglary convictions.

People v. Garcia

S218233

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S218233.PDF

Coming tomorrow

February 24, 2016 Comments off

Tomorrow the Cal. Supremes will issue the following opinion:

PEOPLE v. GARCIA (HUGO)

S218233 (D062659; San Diego County Superior Court – SCN291820)

Argued in Los Angeles 12-01-15

 

The court limited review to the following issue: Did defendant commit two burglaries, or only one burglary, when he entered the business with the intent to commit a robbery, then took the robbery victim to the bathroom in the back of the business with the intent to rape her?

Another death penalty case affirmed

February 22, 2016 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes affirmed another death penalty case today.

People v. Masters (Jarvis)

S016883

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S016883.PDF

Coming Monday

February 19, 2016 Comments off

Monday the Cal. Supremes will issue the following opinion:

PEOPLE v. MASTERS (JARVIS)

S016883 (Marin County Superior Court – 10467)

Argued in Sacramento 11-03-15

 

This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.

Death penalty affirmed

February 18, 2016 Comments off

Coming tomorrow

February 17, 2016 Comments off

Tomorrow the Cal. Supremes will issue an opinion in the following case:

 

PEOPLE v. O’MALLEY (JAMES FRANCIS)

S024046 (Santa Clara County Superior Court – 131339)

Argued in Los Angeles 12-01-15

 

This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.