Opinion
F078556
05-07-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTIAN PHILLIP TYLER, Defendant and Appellant.
Matthew J. Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Michael A. Canzoneri and David A. Lowe, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. CRF55412)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. Donald I. Segerstrom, Jr., Judge. Matthew J. Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Michael A. Canzoneri and David A. Lowe, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Franson, Acting P.J., Meehan, J. and Snauffer, J.
-ooOoo-
INTRODUCTION
Appellant Christian Phillip Tyler stands convicted of residential burglary and theft in excess of $950 from an elder adult. He contends the evidence is insufficient to establish that he harbored an intent to steal when he entered the residence. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
We focus our recitation of facts and procedure to those relevant to the issue on appeal.
Tyler was charged with two counts of residential burglary, a violation of Penal Code section 459, and two counts of theft in excess of $950 from an elder, in violation of section 368, subdivision (d). As to the residential burglary counts, it was alleged the victims were elders, which reasonably should have been known to Tyler, as provided in section 667.9, subdivision (a).
References to code sections are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. --------
Testimony at trial established that 77-year-old Ib Madsen (Madsen) lived with his wife of 50 years, Joan, in their home on Wilcox Ranch Road in Tuolumne County. Tyler is their grandson. Beginning in December 2015 until June 2016, Tyler lived with the Madsens.
The Madsens home has an alarm system and Tyler was given the code to the system while he was living there. The system was wired to the doors and windows and the control pad was located inside the laundry room, next to the garage. The Madsens owned a safe which was located in the garage. The combination to the safe were dates familiar to Madsen, such as birth dates.
Madsen kept guns and money in the safe. Madsen and Tyler went shooting between four and 10 times while Tyler was living with the Madsens. Although Madsen did not give the safe's combination to Tyler, Tyler was standing nearby each time Madsen opened the safe. When Madsen was not using the safe, the safe was locked.
In the safe was an envelope with over $3,000 inside, which Madsen had been saving to give to Tyler as a high school graduation gift. Tyler knew the money was in the safe because Madsen had told him of it. Also, in the safe was a wallet that contained $11,000 which Madsen had withdrawn from the bank to pay for a used car. When he did not go through with the purchase, he placed the money in the safe. Another wallet contained around $2,000 worth of Danish krone.
During June 2016, the Madsens took a trip to New Mexico. Before leaving, Madsen took $5,000 of the $11,000 from the safe, to take on the trip. The balance of the money and krone remained locked in the safe. At the time the Madsens left for their New Mexico trip, Tyler was no longer living in their home. In 2016, however, the Madsens kept a key to their home hidden outside the house. Their children and close friend Chuck Gates knew where the key was hidden.
Madsen testified that while on their New Mexico trip, no one stayed at the house and no one had permission to be there. While they were away, Tyler called them and asked to use their swimming pool. The Madsens gave Tyler permission to use the pool.
Gert Daniel was the Madsens next door neighbor and she kept an eye on the property when they were out of town. Daniel recalled that when the Madsens were out of town in the summer of 2016, Tyler and a friend showed up at the Madsens home. Daniel was under the impression no one was supposed to be at the house, so she went over to speak to Tyler. When asked, Tyler admitted his grandmother did not know he was at the house. The next morning, Tyler told Daniel he had called his grandmother. Later that day, Daniel saw Tyler using the swimming pool.
Upon returning from New Mexico, Madsen saw no signs of forced entry into the house. A week or two after returning from New Mexico, Madsen went to the safe to retrieve a credit card he kept in one of the wallets in the safe. When he opened the safe, he discovered that wallet and the $6,000 inside it were gone.
Madsen spoke to Tyler about the theft of the wallet with $6,000 and asked him to admit what he had done, but initially Tyler would not do so. Sometime later, Tyler's mother put him on the phone to speak with his grandfather; Tyler admitted he took the money. Later that year, Madsen asked Tyler what he had spent the money on, and Tyler simply replied, "stuff." Madsen did not report the theft to police because he felt it was a single incidence, Tyler had been caught, and he did not want to report his grandson to law enforcement.
When a similar theft from the safe occurred in the summer of 2017, Madsen reported both the 2016 and 2017 thefts to the Tuolumne County Sheriff's Department. In 2017, when he was preparing to leave for a trip to Europe, Madsen discovered the krone and the $3,000 set aside for Tyler's high school graduation also were missing.
Deputy Matthew Stuart spoke with Madsen. Madsen reported that he was the victim of a crime and the deputy should speak to his daughter, Ruth, and grandson, Tyler, about it. Stuart spoke with Ruth, then left three messages over five months for Tyler. Tyler never returned any of the phone messages.
District Attorney Investigator Javier Ramos spoke with Madsen in September 2017. Madsen told Ramos that Tyler had been standing next to him 10-20 times when he opened the safe. Also, Madsen acknowledged he sometimes left one of the wallets next to his bed on the nightstand but was reasonably certain the wallets were in the safe when they were taken.
Tyler testified in his own defense. He claimed he lived with his grandparents from December 2014 up to June 2015. Tyler claimed he did not know the code to the alarm system on the house and did not know the combination to the safe. He also claimed Madsen left the safe unlocked about once a month. Tyler did acknowledge knowing where a key to the house was hidden. He denied taking any money from the Madsens.
Tyler also testified, however, that he knew the alarm code to enter the garage and thereby enter the residence. He used the code the day he and a friend went swimming in June 2016, while the Madsens were in New Mexico. He claimed that when Daniel asked him if his grandparents knew he was there, he told her yes. Tyler denied speaking with Daniel the next day.
While at the Madsens residence to swim, Tyler claimed he saw money in four different places in the house. Tyler testified he entered the Madsens bedroom to use the bathroom and saw money, around $1,700, in the bedroom. Tyler went outside, then reentered the house and went to the bedroom, where he took the money.
Tyler claimed that while he and his friend were at the house, Gates came by and entered the house, stayed inside for several minutes, then left.
Tyler also testified he told Madsen he took the money in 2016 for personal reasons and had to pay rent. He said Madsen told him it was "water under the bridge." Tyler stated he never took any other money. He acknowledged knowing his grandfather had saved money for him but claimed he thought it was in the bank, not at the house.
Finally, Tyler testified that Stuart called him once when he was at work, but he did not return the call because he "had more important things to do." He also claimed Stuart only called him once and denied that his mother ever told him Stuart had called trying to reach him.
The jury convicted Tyler of residential burglary and theft from an elder of an amount in excess of $950 pertaining to the 2016 actions; he was acquitted on the other two counts pertaining to 2017.
At sentencing, Tyler was placed on probation for a period of five years. Among the various terms and conditions of probation, he was ordered to serve eight months in jail.
Tyler filed a timely notice of appeal on December 14, 2018.
DISCUSSION
Tyler contends there was insufficient evidence that he had the intent to steal from the Madsens when he entered their house, or any room in the house, and therefore the residential burglary conviction must be reversed. We disagree.
When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts must review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This standard of appellate review is the same in cases in which the People primarily rely on circumstantial evidence. Although a jury must acquit if it finds the evidence susceptible of a reasonable interpretation favoring innocence, it is the jury, not the reviewing court, that weighs the evidence, resolves conflicting inferences, and determines whether the People have met the burden of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the trier of fact's findings are reasonably justified under the circumstances, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances may also be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant reversal of the judgment. (People v. Casares (2016) 62 Cal.4th 808, 823-824.) After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1212-1213.)
Unless the testimony of a single witness is physically impossible or inherently improbable, it is sufficient for a conviction. (Evid. Code, § 411; People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181.) An appellate court must accept logical inferences that the jury might have drawn from circumstantial evidence. (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 396.) Before setting aside the judgment of the trial court for insufficiency of the evidence, it must clearly appear that there was no hypothesis whatever upon which there was substantial evidence to support the verdict. (People v. Conners (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 443, 453; People v. Sanghera (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1567, 1573.)
The elements of burglary include the act of unlawful entry accompanied by the specific intent to commit theft or a felony. One may be liable for burglary upon entry with the requisite intent regardless of whether the felony or theft actually committed is different from the one originally contemplated. (People v. Montoya (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1027, 1041-1042; In re Matthew A. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 537, 540 (Matthew A.).) The defendant must intend to commit the theft or felony at the time of entry. The existence of the requisite intent, however, is rarely shown by direct proof but may be inferred from the facts and circumstances related to the offense. (People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 669; Matthew A., supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 541.) Evidence of the theft of property following entry may create a reasonable inference that the intent to steal existed at the moment of entry. (Matthew A., supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 541.)
The jury need not be unanimous as to what offense the defendant was intending to commit when he or she entered the premises. The jury must only agree the defendant intended to commit a theft or a felony at the time of entry. (People v. Taylor (2010) 48 Cal.4th 574, 627-628.) Where the facts and circumstances of a case and the conduct of the defendant reasonably indicate his or her purpose in entering the premises is to commit a theft or any felony, the conviction may not be disturbed on appeal. (People v. Sanghera, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. 1574.)
"As a practical matter, if the defendant commits, or gives some indication of intending to commit, theft or a felony in a building shortly after entering it, no great inferential leap is necessary to conclude that the intent to commit the supporting offense existed at the time of entry. Thus, temporal or spatial proximity between the entry and the target or predicate crime are factors that may reasonably be considered by the jury when determining whether the requisite intent existed at the moment of entry." (People v. Kwok (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1246.)
Here, the evidence established that Tyler went to the Madsens home when he knew they were out of state; he knew where the key to the home was located; he knew the alarm code to access the garage and thereby the house. After going to the residence under these circumstances, he stole funds from the Madsens. He admitted taking the money when he spoke with his grandfather and then when he testified. All this behavior was suspicious and would support a reasonable inference that Tyler stole from the Madsens and entered the residence for the purpose of doing so. It matters not whether the theft is from the bedroom or the safe; evidence of the theft of the money following entry creates a reasonable inference that the intent to steal existed at the moment of entry. (Matthew A., supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 541.)
Furthermore, " ' "[A] burglary is complete upon the slightest partial entry of any kind, with the requisite intent ...." ' " (People v. McEntire (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 484, 491, quoting People v. Valencia (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1, 8, disapproved on other grounds by People v. Yarbrough (2012) 54 Cal.4th 889, 894.) If we credit Tyler's testimony of the circumstances of the theft, Tyler's act of leaving the bedroom and going outside, then returning to the bedroom and taking the money constitutes an entry with intent.
As we stated, intent is often proven by circumstantial evidence (People v. Abilez (2007) 41 Cal.4th at 472, 508), but in this case, there was circumstantial evidence and an admission of theft. "Inferences drawn from the evidence must be logical and reasonable, not merely speculative." (People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler (2014) 60 Cal.4th 335, 405.) When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence the relevant inquiry is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the allegations true beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.4th 1, 27.) Although Tyler argues there are ways to interpret the facts in a manner different from the jury's verdict, it is not our task on appeal to reweigh the evidence or to reevaluate witness credibility. (Ibid.) We affirm the jury's verdict that Tyler committed first degree burglary.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.