People v. Siekmann CA4/1
Filed 11/14/24 P. v. Siekmann CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D082269
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE409972)
FORREST SIEKMANN,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Sherry M. Thompson-Taylor, Judge. Affirmed. Belinda Escobosa, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Susan Elizabeth Miller, and Britton B. Lacy, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I. INTRODUCTION
Forrest Siekmann seeks reversal of his attempted burglary conviction. He claims insufficient evidence supported finding the requisite intent for that
crime and the trial court erred in denying his requested voluntary intoxication jury instruction. Siekmann also seeks to correct the abstract of judgement to reflect the stay of his fines and fees. We agree the abstract of judgment needs correction, but otherwise affirm the judgment.
II. BACKGROUND
James Bennett lived in a small residential neighborhood in San Diego County. His house sat by itself atop a hill, adjacent to Interstate 8. The only access was a small access road which led to a long driveway up to the house. Given its remoteness, this was not a residence with casual foot traffic walking by it. In the early morning hours of December 17, 2021, Bennett was home watching television in his bedroom. No lights were on in the house and all the windows and doors were locked. Bennett heard pounding and the doorbell ringing at his front door, prompting him to check his surveillance cameras. Through the live feed that streamed to his phone, Bennett observed Siekmann manipulate the front door handle, put his ear to the door, and then throw his body into it. Siekmann did the same thing at each of the house’s entry points, including doors to the garage, laundry room, a bathroom, and a bedroom. Siekmann also attempted to peer into the residence through multiple windows. Siekmann took a few beverages from a cooler on the back patio. When asked by the 911 dispatcher whether Siekmann appeared under the influence, Bennett replied Siekmann did not “look normal.” At trial, Bennett elaborated, adding that Siekmann appeared to be speaking to himself or another person while putting his hands on his head, and pacing back and forth. However, Bennett did not know Siekmann’s normal behavior, and Bennett believed Siekmann “knew exactly what he was doing.”
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)