Court Opinion

ID: 9719098
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:42:20.588886+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:04.612869
License: Public Domain

GARDNER, P. J.—I dissent.
I cannot agree that because a carport is attached to a dwelling house, it becomes such a part of that structure as to come within the burglary statute.
*81I like the basic definition of Gibbons and Stickman that a building is a structure having walls on all sides and covered by a roof. If we were to accept the majority’s contention that just because a carport is attached to a house it becomes such an integral part of the house as to come within the burglary statute, then why not a covered porch, a covered attached patio, an attached pergola or an attached arbor? I have a covered porch. On it are some potted plants. On the uncovered steps to the porch are some other potted plants. Under the majority’s opinion, the thief who steals the potted plants off the steps is a petty thief. But when he breaks the plane by sticking his arm under the overhang to get a plant on the porch he commits a felony. Unhappy though I may be with the thief who steals my potted plants, he is still only a petty thief whether he steals them off the steps or off the covered porch.
There have been some strange and wonderful contraptions defined as buildings within the burglary statute—telephone booths, popcorn stands, chicken houses, dugouts (see authorities listed in Comment (1951) 25 So.Cal.L.Rev. 75, 83; and 1 Witkin, Cal. Crimes, § 455). However, each of these come within the basic definition of Gibbons and Stickman. Each was walled on all sides and each had a roof.
A carport is not walled on all sides. It is not a building within the meaning of Penal Code section 459. The mere fact that the carport enjoys one common wall with the house does not make it a part of the dwelling house for the purpose of the burglary statute. With the great increase in the cost of housing, carports are becoming an increasingly important part of our building culture. Some are attached to houses. Some are separate structures. I think it is going to add unnecessary confusion to the law to have those carports which are separate structures and those carports which share a common wall with the house carry two separate definitions in our criminal law.
I would reverse. This carport is not a building within the meaning of Penal Code section 459.
Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied April 10, 1980. Bird, C. J., and Mosk, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.