1

Filed 6/8/23 P. v. Anderson CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

BROQUE ANDERSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

E079027

(Super. Ct. No. FWV21003849)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Daniel W. 

Detienne, Judge. Affirmed.

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.
2

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.
3

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 
4

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 
5

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.
6

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 
7

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 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1245; People v. Moody (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 357, 363.) 

Many cases have held that evidence of surreptitious entry, flight upon confrontation, and 

failure to provide a reason for being on the premises constitute sufficient evidence from 

which a jury or finder of fact may infer the intent to commit theft sufficient for conviction 

of burglary. (People v. Matson, supra, 13 Cal.3d at pp. 41-42 [Supreme Court concluded 
8

there was sufficient evidence to support a burglary conviction based on the circumstances 

that the defendant entered the victim’s apartment surreptitiously, hid in her bathroom 

with the lights out, and denied having done so]; People v. Martin (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 

334, 339 [Flight from the scene of a burglary, without reasonable explanation, is evidence 

from which intent may be inferred.]; People v. Frye (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 941, 947 

[codefendant made an unauthorized entry into a vacant home at 1:00 a.m. and ran out the 

back door after a police officer yelled, “‘[F]reeze’”; the “late hour and sudden flight upon 

discovery support the inference [he] entered with intent to steal”]; People v. Lopez (1967) 

249 Cal.App.2d 93, 98; People v. Smith (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 698, 704 [an intent to 

commit theft at the time of entry may be inferred from flight from the premises].) 

Indeed, “[b]urglarious intent [can] be reasonably and justifiably inferred from the 

unlawful and forcible entry alone.” (People v. Michaels (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 194, 

199; see People v. Martin, supra, at p. 339; People v. Stewart (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 

687, 690-691; People v. Walters (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 547, 551 [felonious intent to 

commit theft may be inferred from the unlawful entry alone].) Evidence such as theft of 

property from a dwelling may also create a reasonable inference that there was intent to 

commit theft at the time of entry. (In re Leanna W. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 735, 741;

People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 643; People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 462.) 

Such intent may also be inferred where the defendant is a stranger and enters a building at 

a late hour, without permission, and without announcing his intent and is found with 

instruments commonly used by burglars. (People v. Swenson (1938) 28 Cal.App.2d 636, 
9

639-640; People v. Osegueda (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d Supp. 25, 27-30.) A defendant’s 

possession of recently stolen property is another circumstance that shows intent to steal. 

(People v. Lopez (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 698, 709.)

Here, the totality of the facts and circumstances shows that defendant entered PBK 

on October 6, 2021 with the intent to steal. The entry by defendant occurred late at night

around 2:00 a.m. after the business was closed. The entry was intentional and forcible, 

using a burglary tool. Defendant fled with a black bag in his hand while the building’s 

alarm was blaring and prior to law enforcement arrival. And after defendant was 

arrested, he was found in possession of the black bag containing property belonging to a 

PBK employee. The black bag contained a set of keys with a key fob, a tablet, and a 

computer bag, all of which the employee kept in different locations within PBK offices. 

Defendant’s black bag also contained a homemade tool made out of Velcro straps and 

office supplies that looked like it could pry open a door. Further, there was no evidence 

to suggest defendant was known as a customer of the business. In the absence of any 

plausible explanation to the contrary, the most reasonable explanation from these facts is 

that defendant broke into the structure with the intent to steal.

Defendant contends that the facts in the case are unusual to support a finding that 

he entered PBK with the intent to steal. He points to the unusual nature of his activities 

at the PBK building, such as spending hours in the building over the course of at least 

three days, “where dozens of laptops and tablets were easily accessible, before eventually 

exiting with a single black bag and leaving behind two black bags of his own—makes it 
10

‘just as reasonable to infer’ that [his] intent arose after his entry rather than 

contemporaneous to it.” He also points to the fact that he did not take more items, did not 

make a quick exit from PBK, and the fact that he subsequently brought the items he took 

to the police station. These arguments do not support his position that there was 

insufficient evidence of his intent to steal. Rather, these contentions go to the weight and 

credibility of the evidence presented at trial. “‘“We do not reweigh evidence or 

reevaluate a witness’s credibility.”’” (People v. Ramirez (2022) 13 Cal.5th 997, 1118.) 

The jury likely rejected defendant’s testimony that he did not enter PBK with the intent to 

steal.

Defendant’s reliance on People v. Jones (1992) 184 A.D.2d 383, a New York 

case, is misplaced. First, out-of-state authorities are not binding on California courts. 

(People v. Montes (2014) 58 Cal.4th 809, 884.) Second, Jones is distinguishable because 

unlike that case, here defendant did not lawfully enter the PBK building, and there was 

no legitimate explanation for defendant entering PBK. In Jones, the defendant lawfully 

entered a rooming house looking for his uncle, and after not finding him, he went to 

another part of the building and cut hoses inside several bathrooms causing water to leak. 

(People v. Jones, supra, at p. 383.) The appellate court found there was insufficient 

evidence the defendant had entered the building with an intent to commit a crime because 

his uncle did live in the building, he had several other acquaintances whom he often 

visited there, and the prosecution offered no proof as to the time or circumstances of 

defendant’s entry. (Id. at p. 384)
11

Defendant’s reliance on In re Leanna W., supra, 120 Cal.App.4th 735, is also 

misplaced. There, the minor was present at her grandmother’s house during an 

unauthorized party involving 30 to 40 people where the grandmother’s alcohol was 

consumed and her items were missing. (Id. at p. 740.) Because there was a complete 

absence of evidence that the minor participated in any kind of burglary or vandalism or 

even knew burglary or vandalism was taking place in the home and any one of the 

numerous people present at the home could have burglarized or vandalized the home, the 

Court of Appeal found insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding the 

minor committed first degree burglary and vandalism. (Id. at pp. 740-741, 743.) The 

court explained, “The mere possibility that [the minor] consumed the alcohol raises 

nothing more than a suspicion, which does not form a sufficient basis for an inference of 

fact.” (Id. at p. 741.)

Here, the People’s evidence of defendant’s intent is not sheer speculation. Unlike 

the circumstances of Leanna W., defendant was the only person seen at PBK offices 

during the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. at the time of the burglary. PBK employees 

identified defendant as the only person who entered the building without permission 

during late hours. Besides his self-serving statements, there was no evidence of any 

relationship or acquaintance between defendant and any of the employees at PBK. There 

was no suggestion of any legitimate reason for defendant to be inside the PBK building. 

Defendant entered the building without permission using a burglary tool. He was seen on 

video surveillance walking through offices holding a black bag. He had no reasonable 
12

legitimate explanation to be in the building. And he was found in possession of items he 

had taken from a PBK employee, as well as burglary tools at the time of his arrest. There 

is substantial evidence that defendant entered PBK with the intent to steal.

IV.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

CODRINGTON

Acting P. J.

We concur:

RAPHAEL

J.

MENETREZ

J.