People v. Brown CA3

Filed 3/8/16 P. v. Brown CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C078943

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 14F04720)

v.

LERON BROWN,

Defendant and Appellant.

The crux of this case turns on the definitions of burglary and larceny. So, we begin with these. Burglary is committed when a person “enters any house, room, [or] apartment . . . with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony.” (Pen. Code, § 459, italics added.) Larceny is committed when a person “steal[s] or take[s] . . . the personal property of another.” (Pen. Code, § 484, subd. (a), italics added.) Here, a jury found defendant Leron Brown guilty of second degree burglary based on his entering an apartment unit that had been vacated by its tenants, who had left inside an office chair and television. The office chair and television had not been removed by apartment

1

management yet because there was still time for the tenants to retrieve their property. On appeal, defendant raises contentions challenging the sufficiency of evidence and jury instructions. Disagreeing with these contentions, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant was walking around an apartment complex in the early morning knocking on apartment doors until he found one (unit 60) where nobody answered. Inside unit 60 were an office chair and a television that were part of a pile that included a mattress and kids’ toys. The tenants in unit 60 had moved out recently. The property manager had not yet hauled away these items because the tenants still had time to come back to the apartment and retrieve their property. The property manager was alerted to defendant’s presence at the complex when the tenant from unit 59 (which was next door to 60) told the manager he had heard noises that sounded like somebody was walking inside unit 60 and moving stuff. The property manager saw defendant coming out of an elevator in the complex (with nothing in his hands), and he told defendant he needed to leave. Defendant asked if he could quickly grab his bike, and the property manager said, “yes.” Defendant got his bike, went around the corner, and left. Five minutes later, though, the apartment manager saw defendant in the apartment complex pushing the office chair and television. Police found defendant a short time later at a nearby gas station, where he had just been hit by a car while riding his bike. In defendant’s pant pockets were a flathead screwdriver, a pair of wire cutters, and a shaved key. Police found the office chair and television in one of the apartment parking stalls. A jury found defendant guilty of second degree burglary and possessing burglary tools. I There Was Sufficient Evidence Of Burglary, And No Instructions On Mistake Of Fact Or Claim Of Right Were Warranted Defendant contends there was insufficient evidence he committed burglary because there was no evidence the property was owned by someone else, as the tenants