People v. Benavidez CA6

Filed 10/20/22 P. v. Benavidez CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H049693 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 21CR008255)

v.

ISAAC BENAVIDEZ,

Defendant and Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Defendant Isaac Benavidez appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of burglary in the first degree (Pen. Code, § 459; count 1)2 and misdemeanor trespass (§ 602, subd. (m); count 2). Benavidez argues that we should reverse the conviction on count 2 because there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for trespass. The Attorney General concedes this argument. Benavidez does not challenge his conviction as to count 1. Benavidez had been living in his car when he went inside a hotel in Salinas looking for empty rooms where he could use the bathroom and shower. Over the course of two consecutive days, he entered two different hotel rooms.

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. (See also People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 853-855.) 2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

The conduct on the date of the second incident formed the basis for the charge in count 2.3 On July 13, 2021, the hotel manager heard from a guest on the third floor that there was a suspicious person on the hotel property. When the manager went up to the third floor to investigate, he encountered a staff member who told him that she had seen someone walk into an open hotel room. The manager then found Benavidez inside one of the hotel rooms. Benavidez told the manager that he had rented the room that morning, but the manager knew that was not true. Benavidez then stated that he was in the room because he wanted to take a shower. The manager told Benavidez that he had to leave. The manager testified that about five minutes after he contacted Benavidez, he escorted Benavidez off the premises by walking him down the stairs and out of the hotel. Benavidez testified that he was in the room for about 20 seconds before the manager found him, and that he and the manager began walking down the stairs together less than three minutes after the manager first contacted him. Benavidez was charged in an information with felony first degree residential burglary (§ 459, count 1) and misdemeanor trespass (§ 602, subd. (o); count 2). At trial, after the prosecution presented the case-in-chief and rested, Benavidez moved under section 1118.1 for a judgment of acquittal on count 2. Before the court ruled on the motion, the prosecution moved to amend count 2 to charge a violation of section 602, subdivision (m).4 The court granted the motion over a defense objection, and denied Benavidez’s section 1118.1 motion. The jury convicted on both counts. The court