People v. Anderson

1

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BROQUE ANDERSON, Defendant and Appellant.

E079027

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division

June 8, 2023

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No FWV21003849. Daniel W. Detienne, Judge.

Alex Kreit, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Arlyn Escalante, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

CODRINGTON ACTING P. J.

I. INTRODUCTION

A jury found defendant and appellant Broque Anderson guilty of two counts of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). The trial court sentenced defendant to two years, eight months in prison with credit for time served. Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that there is insufficient evidence to support his intent to commit one of the burglaries. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Burglary of PBK Architectural Firm

On October 6, 2021, between the hours of 2:30 a.m. and 3:30 a.m., a representative of PBK Architectural Firm (PBK) received a burglar security alarm notification from its security company. The representative watched a live feed of the security video footage on her phone and saw defendant walking through offices with a bag in his hands. These offices remained locked throughout the day, were not open to visitors at any time, and employees used a key fob system to get in. One of PBK's employees saw defendant exit the office building shortly after 7:00 a.m. The security footage showed defendant carrying something in his hands as he exited the building. Security footage also showed defendant inside PBK's offices in the middle of the night on October 2 and 3, 2021 between 2:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. carrying bags in his hands.

A San Bernardino County Deputy Sheriff arrived at PBK shortly after 7:00 a.m. but did not find defendant. The deputy spoke with three PBK employees and also viewed the surveillance video. The deputy observed fresh and dirt free scratches on the inside of the entry doors around the locking mechanism. The deputy found a tote bag and a black computer bag containing property belonging to defendant inside PBK's building.

Three hours after the deputy was called to PBK, the same deputy recognized defendant from the surveillance video sitting handcuffed in the back of a police vehicle at the sheriff's station. The deputy contacted defendant and searched a small, black cloth bag that was next to him. In the bag, the deputy found a set of keys with a key fob on it, a tablet, and a computer bag, all of which the employee kept in different locations within PBK offices. The PBK employee noted that another key fob had gone missing earlier that week. The deputy also found a homemade tool made out of Velcro straps and office supplies that looked like it could pry open a door inside defendant's black bag.

B. Burglary of Sola Salon

While released on his own recognizance pending trial for the PBK burglary, defendant committed a second burglary on October 25, 2021. On that day, defendant entered Sola Salon in the early morning hours before any of the salon's employees arrived. The salon's manager found defendant on the balcony of the salon where defendant had locked himself out. The manager immediately called law enforcement. Defendant was holding an iced tea he had taken from the salon's refrigerator. The salon's security footage showed that defendant had entered with a metal burglary tool that he had left on top of the salon's refrigerator.

C. Defendant's Defense

Defendant testified on his own behalf. He admitted that he was convicted of vandalism in 2018, and that he was convicted of three felony charges in 2016 for identity theft and possession of counterfeit items. Defendant acknowledged that it was him in the security footage from PBK on October 2 through 6, 2021. He explained that he had gone into PBK's offices to recover his property and to use PBK's conference rooms and library to work on "map data." He also claimed that he was at PBK to meet a friend and his friend's mother who worked at PBK, and that he was in contact with another employee named Lisa, who knew about his meeting with the other two people. Defendant, however, admitted that he did not actually meet up with anyone at PBK.

Regarding the items found in his bag, he claimed that he used the Velcro straps for "the charges to electrical devices" he owned and that at "various times" he left his laptops and laptop bag at PBK offices. He had also left a shirt or two and a jacket in the building because he felt these items would be safe to leave there while he was out running errands. He testified that he did not intend to take the employee's property and only did so because her property resembled his tablet. He admitted to taking a key fob from a conference table at PBK.

As to his arrest after the PBK burglary, defendant stated that "the police . . . had already made the arrest for me being there" and "they released me with the property and I brought the property back there. When I got arrested again." Defendant claimed that he went to the police station on October 6, 2021 because his property was mixed up with the PBK employee's belongings. He explained that he had a bag with two laptops and a tablet and was arrested after he was trying to get his laptops back from the PBK office. He also stated that "they took the property - when they removed me from the building the date I was there with the CEO, they took my property out - well they left my property there and took me out."

As to the Sola Salon burglary, defendant testified that he had plans to meet an employee named Paula at the salon and claimed Paula was outside when he went inside. He also asserted that he either used a key to enter the salon or was buzzed in, but he could not recall who gave him the key. Defendant initially stated that the iced tea he took could have been his because he brought "iced tea and monster to that fridge throughout the year," but later admitted that it was not his. Defendant claimed that the metal instrument found on top of the refrigerator was just a piece of metal he had found and picked up. He denied using that metal instrument to get into the salon. Defendant denied entering the salon or PBK to commit theft or any other crime.

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant does not dispute that he was the person who broke into PBK. Instead, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to prove he entered with the intent to steal and thus his conviction on count 1 should be reversed. We disagree.

In considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a judgment of conviction, we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence, i.e., evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value, from which a rational jury could find the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. (Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319; People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578; People v. Manibusan (2013) 58 Cal.4th 40, 87; People v. Wilson (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 128, 153.) We focus "'on the whole record . . ., rather than on "'isolated bits of evidence.'"'" (People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1329.) Reversal is required only if "'it appears "that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction]."'" (People v. Cravens (2012) 53 Cal.4th 500, 508.) Nonetheless, "a reasonable inference from the evidence '"'may not be based on suspicion alone, or on imagination, speculation, supposition, surmise, conjecture, or guesswork. [¶] . . . A finding of fact must be an inference drawn from evidence rather than . . . a mere speculation as to probabilities without evidence.'"'" (People v. Sanford (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 84, 91-92.)

"'Conflicts and even testimony [that] is subject to justifiable suspicion do not justify the reversal of a judgment, for it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends. [Citation.] We resolve neither credibility issues nor evidentiary conflicts; we look for substantial evidence. [Citation.]' [Citation.] A reversal for insufficient evidence 'is unwarranted unless it appears "that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support"' the jury's verdict. [Citation.]" (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357.) The same standard applies when the conviction rests primarily on circumstantial evidence. (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053.)

In order to be convicted of second degree burglary, the People have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant entered a commercial business building with the intent to steal or commit a felony. (§ 459.) The requisite intent must exist at the time of entry (People v. Hill (1967) 67 Cal.2d 105, 119), and will usually be inferred from circumstantial evidence. (People v. Matson (1974) 13 Cal.3d 35, 41.) "Where the facts and circumstances of a particular case and the conduct of the defendant reasonably indicate his purpose in entering the premises is to commit larceny or any felony, the conviction may not be disturbed on appeal." (People v. Nunley (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 225, 232.)

"[T]he intent required for robbery . . . is seldom established with direct evidence but instead is usually inferred from all the facts and circumstances surrounding the crime." (People v. Abilez (2007) 41 Cal.4th 472, 506-507; accord, People v. Kwok (1998) 63...