P. v. Holliday
Filed 4/9/12 P. v. Holliday CA4/1
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
ONE
STATE
OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
REECE PETER HOLLIDAY,
Defendant and Appellant.
D059891
(Super. Ct.
No. SCN279332)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County, Richard E. Mills, Judge. Affirmed.
In this
unfortunate case, the appellant, who suffers from
occupied dwelling in order to steal a slice of pizza. He undoubtedly terrified the teenage girls who
were inside the house and he has now been convicted of
convicted, we can only observe it is sad that he has incurred a conviction for
a serious felony for such a trivial goal, getting a slice of pizza.
Reece Peter
Holliday was convicted, following a jury trial, of residential burglary where
there were persons present inside the dwelling.
(Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, 667.5, subd. (c)(21).) The trial court granted Holliday five years
formal probation.
Holliday
filed a timely notice of appeal. In his appeal he contends there is not
sufficient evidence to prove that he intended to steal pizza when he entered
the dwelling. We will find there is
sufficient substantial evidence in this record to prove his intention to
steal. Accordingly, we will affirm.
STATEMENT
OF FACTS
At around 5:30 p.m. on July 11, 2010, two young girls were babysitting the
children of a family in Vista. One of the girls was outside the house when
Holliday approached her and asked if she was alone. The girl told Holliday that her father was
inside the house, at which point Holliday said he would "just go
home." The girl went inside and
locked the door.
In the
meantime, the girls had ordered a pizza to be delivered to the house. The pizza delivery person arrived shortly
after the encounter with Holliday. While
the girls and the children were eating the pizza Holliday knocked on their door
and rang the doorbell. One of the girls
opened the door, at which point Holliday asked if he could have some
pizza. The girl told him it was almost
all gone. Holliday responded that he did
not think that was possible since the pizza had just been delivered.
The girl
slammed the door and they took the children upstairs. As they were going upstairs they observed
Holliday at the living room sliding door.
The girls took the children into the master bedroom and tried to hold
the door shut. As they were holding the
door shut, they observed a shadow under the door and felt someone pushing on
the door. One of the girls called 911.
Holliday
was arrested about 15 minutes after police arrived. He told police that he had encountered a girl
in the front yard of a house and that she told him her parents were home and
that they had ordered a pizza. Holliday
went home, but then returned to the house because he wanted a slice of
pizza. Holliday said he knocked on the
door and asked for a slice of pizza, but the girl who answered told him the
pizza was gone.
Holliday
told police that after the girl told him he could not have any pizza, he went
to the sliding glass door of the living room.
He opened the door and went inside.
Holliday said he went inside to see if everything was alright and denied
that he went upstairs. Holliday said
that while he was inside the house he noticed the pizza was not all gone so he
took a slice.
Defense Case
Holliday
called a forensic clinical psychologist to testify about Holliday's mental
state. The witness said that Holliday
suffered from paranoid schizophrenia.
DISCUSSION
Holliday
contends there is not sufficient evidence in this record to prove that he intended
to steal pizza before he entered the dwelling.
He does not challenge the proof that he entered the occupied dwelling or
that he in fact stole a slice of pizza.
His contention focuses on what he contends is a lack of evidence to
prove his intent at the time of entry.
Holliday argues that his statements show he did not believe there was
pizza in the house because the girls told him it had been consumed. Thus he argues he did not have the requisite
intent for the offense of burglary. We
are satisfied that a reasonable jury could conclude that the purpose of
Holliday's entry into the house was his fixation on getting a slice of the
girls' pizza, and however trivial the purpose, the evidence established an
intent to steal before the actual entry into the dwelling.
1. Standard of Review
When an
appellate court reviews a claim of insufficient evidence to support a
conviction, it applies the very familiar substantial evidence standard of
review. Under that standard the court
reviews the entire record, drawing all reasonable inferences in support of the
fact finder's decision. The court does
not make credibility decisions and it does not reweigh the evidence. Rather the appellate court simply determines
whether there is sufficient substantial evidence in the record from which a
reasonable jury could have been satisfied of the defendant's guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. In short, it is not
our role on appeal to retry the question of guilt or innocence. (People
v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578.)
We apply the same standard when we review a conviction based on
circumstantial evidence. (
Cal.4th 43, 66.)
2. Analysis
In order to
convict a person of burglary, the prosecution must prove the person entered the
building with the concurrent intent to commit theft or a felony. (People
v. Montoya (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1027, 1041.) The intent of the defendant at the time of
entry into a building is usually proved by circumstantial
evidence. That is, we look to the
circumstances surrounding the entry to determine if the jury could reasonable
infer an intent to commit theft at the time of the entry. (People
v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 669-670.) The fact a defendant actually committed a
theft inside the building may create a reasonable inference that the theft was
the purpose of the entry. (
120 Cal.App.4th 735, 741.)
Although
Holliday told police he entered the dwelling to see if everything was alright,
the jury was not required to believe his version of the events. Given his clear fixation on getting some
pizza from the girls, and the immediate nature of his entry through the glass
door after being locked out by the girls supports an inference he was still in
pursuit of his goal. It is notable that
Holliday told police he did not go upstairs, yet the girls testified that he
did and that he pushed on the bedroom door.
In other words, the jury could well have rejected his unlikely story
that he went in to see if everything was alright, given his earlier insistence
that there should have been some pizza left and that he continued to pursue the
issue. The fact that he did take some
pizza once inside is a fact that tends to support the theory that obtaining some
of the pizza was the purpose of his actions, however strange his fixation might
have been. We are therefore satisfied
that on this record the jury could have been convinced of the intent to commit
theft beyond a reasonable doubt.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, J.
IRION, J.
