PEOPLE v. SANGHERA

Filed 5/31/06

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION^*

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sutter)

----

     APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sutter County, Robert Damron, Judge.  Affirmed.

     Olaf W. Hedberg, for Defendant and Appellant.

     Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Stephen G. Herndon, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Wanda Hill Rouzan, Deputy Attorney General,  for Plaintiff and Respondent.

     Following a bench trial in case No. CRF05-0224, the court found defendant Balraj Singh Sanghera guilty of first degree burglary, petty theft, and possession of stolen property, all of which he committed while on probation in case No. CRF04-2136.  The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of seven years in prison in case No. CRF05-0224, with a concurrent five-year term in case No. CRF04-2136.

     On appeal, defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to support the burglary conviction because he did not have the intent required to commit that crime.  He also contends the court erred when it declined to grant or reinstate probation.  We conclude the evidence was sufficient, and the court did not err in denying probation.  Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

     In August 2004, in case No. CRF04-2136, defendant pled guilty to one count of transporting cocaine in exchange for sentencing under Proposition 36.  As a result, the court placed him on three years' probation with various conditions. 

     While on probation, defendant was instructed to report to the probation department every Tuesday and Friday for chemical testing and to report to his probation officer by the 10th and 25th of each month.  Defendant failed to comply with these instructions after December 16, 2004.  Defendant was also instructed to report to mental health for a substance abuse assessment, but he failed to do so. 

     On January 22, 2005, defendant was helping with a home remodeling project at a house owned by Parmjeet Samra.  Samra lent defendant his Corvette to run a 15-minute errand.  Defendant never returned. 

     Two days later, on January 24, Samra reported the incident to the sheriff's department.  The car was located later that day, and law enforcement officers began looking for defendant. 

     That afternoon, Anissa Sumpano returned home to find the doors leading from her backyard into her house open.  After flagging down a police officer, Sumpano went into the house and found that her bedroom and her children's bedroom had been ransacked.  Sumpano discovered that some clothes were missing, including her daughter's pink slippers.  There were also items missing from her purse and her jewelry box.  There was mud on the window sill in the kitchen, on the counter, and on the floor.  Later on, while cleaning up the house, Sumpano found a pair of shorts under her bed that did not belong to anyone in the house. 

     Earlier that same day, Sumpano's neighbor, Yannet Rodriguez, returned home to find police everywhere.  They told her they were looking for someone who might be in her house.  The police searched Rodriguez's house and found things on her bed that were missing from Sumpano's house.  They then found defendant hiding in a closet, wearing some of Rodriguez's clothes and the slippers taken from Sumpano's house.  Rodriguez later discovered a sweatshirt that did not belong to her in her hamper.  Rodriguez also discovered that $38 was missing from her desk.  Officers found that amount of money, along with three crumpled dollars, on defendant when they arrested him. 

     On January 26, defendant's probation officer filed a declaration alleging defendant had violated the terms of his probation in case No. CRF04-2136.  That same day, defendant was charged in case No. CRF05-0224 with first degree burglary, petty theft with a prior, unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle, and possessing stolen property. 

     Defendant waived his right to a jury trial, and the new criminal charges and the violation of probation were tried together in a court trial in August 2005.  Testifying in his own defense, defendant claimed that Samra did not give him a time limit for using the Corvette and that when he entered the two houses on January 24, he did not intend to steal but simply intended to hide from the police.  He further claimed he had been up for three days on narcotics at the time. 

     The trial court found defendant had violated his probation in case No. CRF04-2136 by failing to report for chemical testing, failing to report for a substance abuse assessment, and failing to report to his probation officer, as well as by committing further crimes on January 24, 2005.  On the criminal charges in case No. CRF05-0224, the court found defendant guilty of first degree burglary, petty theft, and possession of stolen property.  The court acquitted him of unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle. 

     In a written request and orally at the sentencing hearing in October 2005, defense counsel asked the court to grant defendant probation because he is (or claims to be) a drug addict.  Defendant also addressed the court and said he needed â€