PEOPLE v. GLAZIER























Filed 7/19/10











CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION



IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA



SECOND APPELLATE
DISTRICT



DIVISION THREE




>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GARY GLAZIER, Defendant and Appellant.

B214200 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA327288)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior
Court of Los Angeles
County, Michael E. Pastor, Judge. Affirmed.

Jonathan P. Milberg, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney
General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C.
Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, James William Bilderback II and Marc A.
Kohm, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.



_________________________







Defendant and appellant,
Gary Glazier, appeals his conviction of first
degree attempted burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 664). [1] Glazier used a paint sprayer filled with
gasoline and a 20-foot long torch to set fire to his neighbor's house while he
remained on his own property. Glazier
claims he should not have been convicted of attempted burglary under the
burglary-by-instrument doctrine.

We disagree. As interpreted by case law, the limitations
on the burglary-by-instrument doctrine have no application in this
situation. Glazier's conduct fell within
the parameters of the doctrine.
Therefore, substantial evidence supports his attempted burglary
conviction under the burglary-by-instrument doctrine. The judgment is affirmed.

>FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Glazier's
charged offenses.

On November 26, 2007, Glazier was accused, in an
indictment returned in the Los Angeles Superior Court, of arson and
related charges. The court dismissed
several charges upon the defense's motions.
The resulting accusatory pleading
charged Glazier with arson of an inhabited structure or property (count 1;
§ 451, subd. (b)), attempted first degree burglary (count 2;
§§ 459, 664), [2]
and possession of flammable material (count 3; Pen. Code, § 453,
subd. (a)).

2. >Evidence presented at trial.

On October 17, 2008, the matter came on for a jury trial. Viewed in accordance with the usual rule of
appellate review (People v. Ochoa
(1993) 6 Cal. 4th 1199, 1206), the evidence at trial established the following.


In 1998, Albert Artsvelyan, his wife, and their children
moved into a house in La Crescenta, next door to defendant Glazier. The Artsvelyans made friends with many of
their neighbors, but were unable to establish a friendly relationship with
Glazier. They first attempted to
introduce themselves to Glazier when they moved in by taking a bottle of wine
to his house, but he would not answer the door even though the Artsvelyans
could tell he was home. The Artsvelyans
saw Glazier driving around the neighborhood, but were never able to talk to
him. When Mr. Artsvelyan attempted to
introduce himself again, after Glazier got into an argument with city workers
outside his house, Glazier told him he was a bad neighbor and ordered him off
his property.

In 2003, the Artsvelyans
began an extensive remodel of their home, staying at a relative's house nearby
when the construction interfered with their daily life. Even when sleeping at their relative's home,
however, the Artsvelyans returned to their property regularly. On the night of May
11, 2004[3], the Artsvelyans met at
their house, which was still under construction, to see the newly-installed
swimming pool and pool lights.
As they were admiring the lights and talking loudly, they heard
Glazier's door slam and then all the lights in their backyard, including the
pool lights, suddenly went out. Given
Glazier's hostile attitude toward them, the Artsvelyans suspected he had shut
off their power. The Artsvelyans
returned to their relative's house for the night once Mr. Artsvelyan fixed
the lights.

On May 12, Mr. and Mrs.
Artsvelyan visited the house to check the mail, visit neighbors, and turn off
the pool filter. Mr. Artsvelyan also
checked surveillance video from multiple hidden cameras he had installed
following several deeply disturbing events involving Glazier.[4] The Artsvelyans left the house to return to
their relative's home at 11:30 p.m. Around 4:00 a.m., they were awakened and
told their house was on fire. They drove
to their house and found it ablaze. The
events leading up to the fire were captured on video tape by the Artsvelyans's
surveillance system.

The video tapes showed that
at 3:15 a.m. a beam of light suddenly illuminated the
Artsvelyans's house. This light came
from Glazier's property, about 20 feet away.
Shortly after, while standing on his own property, Glazier used an
implement, subsequently determined to be a pressurized paint sprayer, to spray
something into the crawlspace underneath the ground floor of the Artsvelyans's
house. The crawlspace was open due to the
remodeling project. Glazier then extended
a long pole, with a flame burning on the end of it, into the crawlspace. The flame ignited what was later determined
to be gasoline vapor, setting the house on fire. Glazier never left his own property during
this course of events.

Police and firefighters
responded to the fire. Glazier was
detained and his property searched. A
paint sprayer and its attachments were found in his truck. The paint sprayer contained burnt
gasoline. Subsequent testing determined
it was capable of spraying gasoline in the manner shown on the surveillance
video when modified with hoses and other attachments found on Glazier's
property. PVC pipes that were long
enough to stretch from Glazier's property into the Artsvelyans's house were
found in Glazier's garage.

3. Glazier's
conviction and sentence.

The jury found Glazier
guilty as charged on all three counts.
Glazier was sentenced to eight years in prison for the arson count. Sentences for the counts of attempted first
degree burglary and possession of flammable material were stayed pursuant to
section 654.

Glazier appealed the
judgment of conviction.

>CONTENTION

Glazier's sole contention on
appeal relates to the attempted burglary count.
He contends there was insufficient evidence to support his
attempted burglary conviction under the burglary-by-instrument doctrine.

>DISCUSSION

1. >Legal principles.

Section 459
provides, in pertinent part: â€