People v. Figueroa

California Court of Appeal Jan 28, 1992 No. B055828Published

Before: Turner

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that fingerprint evidence, when combined with other circumstantial evidence, is sufficient to support a burglary conviction under the standard set by the California Supreme Court in People v. Bean.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for first degree burglary based on palm prints found at the scene.
Whether the Ninth Circuit's decision in Mikes v. Borg is binding on California courts regarding the sufficiency of fingerprint evidence.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The California Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that fingerprints are the strongest evidence of identity and ordinarily are sufficient by themselves to identify the perpetrator of the crime.”

“Mikes, insofar as it is inconsistent with Bean, may not be relied upon by California intermediate appellate and trial courts because it is an intermediate federal appellate court decision.”

Opinion

TURNER, P. J.

Pedro Figueroa (defendant) appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and a court trial in which he was found to have suffered a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a) and to have served four prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). He contends: “There was insufficient evidence upon which to sustain appellant’s conviction.”

Viewed in accordance with the usual rules on appeal

(People

Barnes

(1986) 42 Cal.3d 284, 303 [228 Cal.Rptr. 228, 721 P.2d 110]), the evidence established that at approximately 10:30 a.m., on March 21, 1990, Rosa Munoz returned to her apartment in Wilmington and noticed a portion of the sliding window in her kitchen had been broken and the glass removed. The front door to the apartment was ajar and she observed that some drawers had been opened and a videocassette recorder (VCR), camera, and some jewelry were missing. When Los Angeles Police Officer Raymond Peterson arrived at Ms. Munoz’s apartment, he found a piece of the missing glass pane in a dumpster at the rear of the building. He dusted the pieces of glass for prints and lifted two palm prints. Officer Peterson concluded that the burglar’s point of entry had been through the broken portion of the kitchen window. The latent prints lifted from the glass pane were later determined to be defendant’s palm prints.

Ms. Munoz testified that defendant was the brother-in-law of her uncle and he had been to her apartment three to five times previously. She testified that she had been present on each of those occasions and that he had never been in the part of the kitchen near the sliding door, although she could not remember whether he had used the sink near the window. She also testified that the outside of the kitchen window was washed every other weekend.

Relying upon the decision of

Mikes

Borg

(9th Cir. 1991) 947 F.2d 353, 356-361, defendant contends the foregoing evidence is insufficient to allow the jurors to find him guilty of first degree burglary. In

People v. Figueroa

AI Brief

TURNER, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief