People v. Bautista, 121317 CAAPP2, B278597
|Opinion Judge:||TANGEMAN, J.|
|Party Name:||THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRYSTIAN M. BAUTISTA, Defendant and Appellant.|
|Attorney:||Laurie S. Wilmore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Shawn McGahey Webb, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Gary A. Lie...|
|Judge Panel:||We concur: GILBERT, P. J. YEGAN, J.|
|Case Date:||December 13, 2017|
|Court:||California Court of Appeals|
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Superior Court County No. YA094190, of Los Angeles Hector M. Guzman, Judge
Laurie S. Wilmore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Shawn McGahey Webb, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Gary A. Lieberman, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted Chrystian M. Bautista of two counts of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a)), one count of possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377), and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364). The trial court suspended execution of concurrent four-year sentences on the burglary convictions, and placed Bautista on five years of formal probation. Bautista contends: (1) the court should have granted his motion for judgment of acquittal on the two burglary charges, (2) there was insufficient evidence that he neither owned nor lacked consent to take the property at issue, (3) the court should have granted his request to instruct the jury on a mistake-of-fact defense, (4) the court should have barred evidence of prior conduct as irrelevant to his intent to steal, and (5) the court erroneously reduced the prosecution's burden of proof by labeling his prior conduct as an “alleged attempted burglary.” We affirm.
Bautista moved into his mother and stepfather's house in the fall of 2015. They told him he could stay until he found a job. In mid-March 2016, his mother said he had to leave by the end of the month if he did not find a job. On March 31, his mother told him he could not live at the house any longer and that he was not allowed to be there. He removed his belongings later that day.
Over the next four weeks, Bautista entered his parents' house almost daily, without their permission, to take showers and to eat. His mother did not report the entries to police. She believed he had a key to the house.
On April 27, a television was missing from the house when Bautista's mother arrived home from work. The bathroom window was open. She found two notes in Bautista's handwriting, one addressed to her and one to her husband. The note to Bautista's stepfather read: “After seeing 2 what lengths you guys will go to not help me out... with at least showering or eating after most memorably, kicking me out, of the house I grew up in.... [I]t is interesting how you, now married, will kick me out and do the most 2 keep me down as I get up. [¶] Good thing you don't have any more kids 2 kick out and kick down. Welcome home... the one I grew up in.”
Two weeks later, Bautista's mother changed the locks to the house. The next day, she noticed a hole had been drilled underneath the new lock. Around 1:00 a.m. on May 13, she heard her car alarm. She went outside and saw Bautista trying to get into the trunk of her car. He left, dropping a pillow on the sidewalk, but returned and confronted his mother a few minutes later. He then left again.
The next day, Bautista was inside the house when his mother came home. His belongings were in the front yard. She called the sheriff's department and waited in her car. After Bautista left, she went inside and noticed that money and food were missing. A deputy arrested Bautista later that day, and found two mirrors belonging to his stepfather in his luggage.
Bautista admitted that he took the television from his parents' house on April 27. He said he lent it to a friend and planned to return it. Police recovered the television from Bautista's friend.
Motion for judgment of acquittal
Bautista contends the trial court should have granted his motion for judgment of acquittal on the two burglary charges because he had a right to enter his parents' house. We disagree.
A trial court may grant a motion for a judgment of acquittal “if the evidence then before the court is insufficient to sustain a conviction.” (Pen. Code, § 1118.1.) When deciding the motion, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and determines whether substantial evidence supports each element of the crime charged. (Porter v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 125, 132.) “The question ‘is simply whether the prosecution has presented sufficient evidence to present the matter to the jury for its determination.' [Citation.]” (People v. Stevens (2007) 41 Cal.4th 182, 200.) This court applies the same standard, and we independently determine whether the evidence can sustain a verdict. (Ibid.)
A burglary is “an entry [that] invades a possessory right in a building... committed by a person who has no right to be...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP