P. v. Miller
Filed 7/11/06 P. v. Miller CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ELI DANIEL MILLER, Defendant and Appellant. | H029045 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC456149) |
After a court trial, the trial court convicted defendant Eli Daniel Miller of first degree burglary, dissuading a witness, and misdemeanor vandalism. On appeal, defendant contends that no substantial evidence supports the burglary conviction. In particular, defendant argues that no evidence supports that he entered premises with intent to commit a felony. According to defendant, the evidence showed no more than a contingent intent to commit a felony. We affirm the judgment.
background
The victim in this case obtained a restraining order against defendant because of domestic violence. Defendant nevertheless made unannounced visits to the victim at her home. Some of the visits became romantic; some became argumentative. One evening, the victim called 911 because she believed that defendant's girlfriend was banging on her door and windows to carry out a threat against her. However, defendant was the person who was banging. He kicked in the door, pointed a gun at the victim,[1] and terminated the call to 911. When 911 called back, he forced the victim to decline help. At some point, defendant told the victim that he had broken in because he suspected that she was with another man. He added that he would have killed her and the man had that been true. He later accused the victim of being pregnant with another man's child and threatened to kill her, the baby, and the man. Ultimately, defendant and the victim had sexual relations generating sex-offense charges against defendant for which the trial court acquitted him.
As to the burglary charge, the trial court explained as follows: â€
