From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Sigsbee

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 6, 2011
D057191 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 6, 2011)

Opinion

D057191 Super. Ct. No. SCD222092

09-06-2011

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANDREW DWIGHT SIGSBEE, Defendant and Appellant.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Jeffrey F. Fraser, Judge. Judgment affirmed.

Andrew Dwight Sigsbee appeals a judgment entered following his conviction for burglarizing a Chevy Tahoe. He contends that the testimony of the sole witness did not place him near the burglarized Chevy and that a mere suspicion of guilt was insufficient to support the conviction. We reject Sigsbee's arguments and affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

At about 12:25 a.m. on July 30, 2009, Paul Michael Morris, an employee with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, received a telephone call summoning him to work. He changed into his uniform, including his service pistol, left his residence and walked down to the basement parking garage of his apartment complex to get his car.

When Morris exited the stairwell he heard breaking glass and clanking metal. As he walked past the elevator area, he noticed a double-parked white mini pick-up truck. Morris did not see anyone inside the truck. As Morris passed the end of the staircase he realized that the noise was coming from his right, where a Chevy Tahoe was parked in space number 514. When he looked to the right he saw someone's hand in the air snapping his fingers as if to get someone's attention. That person, later identified as defendant Nicholas Burnthon, was wearing a short-sleeved, horizontally striped t-shirt.

Morris then saw an individual between the Chevy and the vehicle parked in space number 513 suddenly jump up to leave the parking structure. Morris later identified Sigsbee as the person who popped up between the vehicles. Morris tried to chase Sigsbee, but gave up and watched him disappear into the night.

When Morris reentered the parking structure he heard a motor start. Morris watched the white truck come towards him, he drew his pistol, pointed it at the driver and yelled for the driver to stop. Morris made eye contact with the driver and fired a single shot. The driver stopped and Morris placed him into handcuffs. Morris identified the driver as Burnthon.

The police discovered that two cars had been broken into, a Chevy Tahoe and a Toyota Tacoma. The owner of the Chevy left his locked car in the parking structure with its windows rolled up. When he returned to the car, the police were there and he saw that the passenger side window had been shattered; however, nothing was missing. The owner of the Chevy had not given anyone permission to enter his car. The owner of the Toyota told the police that his car had been broken into and that a GPS unit had been taken. The police later found the GPS unit inside Burnthon's truck.

In the meantime, Morris told San Diego Police Officer Jonathan Wiese that the individual who had fled was a shorter white male in his teens or early twenties and wearing an olive green shirt, long shorts and a hat. Officer Wiese learned the potential suspect's name was Andrew Sigsbee. Officer Wiese found Sigsbee outside a nearby 7-Eleven store wearing a green shirt and jeans. Officer Wiese detained Sigsbee until Morris identified him.

An information charged Sigsbee and Burnthon with two counts of burglary. It charged Burnthon with assault with a deadly weapon, and further alleged that Sigsbee had probation denial prior convictions and one prison prior.

Burnthon testified in his own defense. Burnthon admitted that he and Sigsbee went to the apartment complex in his truck to get medical marijuana from his caregiver, who did not live at the complex. He waited by the truck while Sigsbee left to meet the caregiver. Burnthon heard a commotion and did not want to get involved; so he got in his truck and attempted to drive out of the garage. Burnthon claimed that he did not hear Morris yelling at him and did not notice Morris's uniform until Morris fired his gun.

A jury found Sigsbee guilty of burglarizing the Chevy, and found Burnthon guilty of burglarizing the Chevy and the Toyota. The jury could not reach a verdict on the count against Sigsbee for burglarizing the Toyota or the count of assault with a deadly weapon as to Burnthon. The trial court declared a mistrial on both charges. The trial court sentenced Sigsbee to the upper term of three years. Sigsbee timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

We reject Sigsbee's argument that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient for a reasonable jury to find him guilty of burglarizing the Chevy.

In reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether substantial evidence supported it. (People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 848-849.) The crime of burglary is committed when a person enters any vehicle without the owner's consent when the doors are locked with the intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony. (Pen. Code, § 459; People v. Allen (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 909, 914.) Burglary may be proven by circumstantial evidence and does not require witnesses to have seen the defendant in the act of committing the break-in, nor is it necessary for any stolen property to be found in the defendant's possession. (People v. Hinson (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 573, 577, 578-579.) Flight from the scene of a burglary is highly incriminating circumstantial evidence of participation in a burglary. (People v. Martin (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 334, 339.)

Here, Morris's testimony when considered with the exhibits admitted into evidence placed Sigsbee next to the burglarized Chevy and supported an inference that Sigsbee committed the burglary while Burnthon acted as a lookout. Specifically, shortly after hearing the sound of breaking glass, Morris saw Sigsbee jump up between the two vehicles parked in space numbers 513 and 514. Morris identified People's Exhibit 6 as photographs of the Chevy Tahoe after it had been broken into. The Chevy owner identified People's Exhibit 6 as a photograph of his car where he had left it, parked in space number 514. This evidence, combined with Sigsbee's flight from the scene, was sufficient to support an inference that he was in the process of burglarizing the Chevy when Morris saw him jump up between the Chevy and the vehicle parked in space number 513.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

MCINTYRE, J. WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

O'ROURKE, J.


Summaries of

People v. Sigsbee

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 6, 2011
D057191 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 6, 2011)
Case details for

People v. Sigsbee

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANDREW DWIGHT SIGSBEE, Defendant…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 6, 2011

Citations

D057191 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 6, 2011)