Court Opinion

ID: 9381825
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-23 21:03:31.613962+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:38.865629
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/23/23

                        CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

                COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                DIVISION ONE

                           STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 THE PEOPLE,                               D079825

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.                                (Super. Ct. No. SCN422268)

 ANDRE MYLES,

         Defendant and Appellant.

       APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Carlos O. Armour, Judge. Reversed and remanded with instructions.
       Gary V. Crooks, 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, Collette
C. Cavalier, Kathryn Kirschbaum and Nora S. Weyl, Deputy Attorneys
General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                               INTRODUCTION
       A homeless man named Andre Myles broke a window and entered an
unoccupied Oceanside house. During the 15 hours he was inside, he did not
take anything of significant value. But he drank a juice box and ate ice
cream belonging to the owner, and he charged the battery in the owner’s
vehicle. Several months later, Myles tried to break into the house again.
      The only disputed issue at Myles’s trial for first degree residential
burglary and attempted first degree residential burglary was whether he had
the specific intent to commit theft when he entered or tried to enter the
house. Myles claimed he did not have the required specific intent. He
presented evidence he suffered from a mental disorder that caused him to
experience delusions, and at the time of each incident, these delusions caused
him to believe the home belonged to him because it had been given to him by
an “entity” named “Archangel Michael.”
      The trial court modified the pattern instruction on the definition of
theft by larceny (CALCRIM No. 1800) by adding this sentence: “The
unauthorized use of utilities in a residence or consumption of property within
the home is considered larceny for purposes of Burglary.” The modified
instruction also contained citations to appellate decisions involving burglary
charges arising from alleged incidental use of utilities and consumption of
food inside a victim’s home, with these parenthetical factual summaries:
“holding that making a long-distance call constituted intent to commit
larceny” and “theft of utilities could not be proven without evidence that
entrant intended to use utilities and did in fact use utilities.” The jury
convicted Myles of both charges.
      We conclude the trial court committed prejudicial instructional error
when it modified the definition of theft and provided the jury with citations to
appellate decisions that included factual summaries of other burglary cases.
Consequently, we reverse Myles’s convictions of burglary and attempted
burglary and remand for possible retrial.

                                        2
               FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
                                        I.
                                     Charges
      In an amended information in case SCN422268, Myles was charged

with first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code,1 §§ 459, 460, subd. (a);
count 1) and attempted first degree residential burglary (§§ 459/664, 460,

subd. (a); count 2).2 It was further alleged that Myles committed counts 1
and 2 while he was released on bail or his own recognizance on another
matter (§ 12022.1, subd. (b)), and that he had a serious felony prior (§ 667,
subd. (a)(1)) and a strike prior (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, & 668).
                                        II.
                                    Evidence
A.    Prosecution’s Case
      1.    The May 2020 Burglary (Count 1)
      Jake D. lived in Los Angeles. He also had a house in Oceanside that
was legally owned by his mother but was in probate due to his mother’s
death. Jake was the only resident of the Oceanside house, which he
periodically visited.
      In April 2020, Jake’s father went to the house to do yard work and
housekeeping. The house appeared normal and nothing was out of place.
Jake’s van was parked in the garage and his father tried to charge the van’s
battery because it was dead. He changed his mind after realizing he was

1     Further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2     Myles was also charged with two misdemeanors, possession of
methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count 3) and
battery (Pen. Code, § 242; count 4). He pled guilty to both of these charges
before trial on counts 1 and 2.

                                        3
unsure how to use the charger, left the van in the garage with the charger
next to it ready for use, and put the van keys back into a container on the
kitchen counter where they were normally kept. He locked all of the house
doors when he left.
      Jake had equipped the house with a security system that alerted him
on his cell phone when the doors and windows with alarm sensors were
opened or closed. On the afternoon of May 1, 2020, Jake started receiving
alerts of unexpected activity at the house. He was first alerted that the
security system touch screen inside the house had lost power. He then
received additional alerts of entries through the front door and interior
garage door that continued into the early morning of May 2.
      At 7:44 a.m. on May 2, Jake went to check on the house. His van was
parked in the driveway instead of the garage. He checked the backyard, saw
no one, and returned to the front door. As he was about to insert his key to
open the front door, “the doorknob turned and the door opened and this
gentleman was there.” It was Myles.
      Surprised, Jake asked Myles, “[W]ho are you? What are you doing
here?” Myles told Jake “he lived there and that it was his house.” Myles
“seemed serious [to Jake], . . . he said that he lived there, that was his house.”
Jake stepped back from the doorway and called 911. When Jake told Myles,
“ ‘this is my house homeboy, you’re going to have to leave,’ ” Myles asked him,

“this is your house?” Myles also asked, “Are you Jake?”3 “There was some
back and forth regarding whose house it actually belonged to.” Myles then

3     Jake explained Myles would have no reason to know his name, but he
did keep bills and paperwork that had his name on them on the kitchen
counter.

                                        4
said he would leave if Jake showed him “some form of identification” so “he
could confirm that it is, in fact, Jake.”
      Jake, who was now inside the house, showed Myles his identification.
Upon seeing Jake’s identification, Myles went to gather “his stuff” that was

near a nightstand and while there he grabbed a pair of scissors.4 Jake was
still on the phone with the 911 dispatcher. The dispatcher asked Jake what
Myles was doing and when he told the dispatcher about Myles grabbing the
scissors, the dispatcher told Jake to back away from Myles. As Jake “walked
backwards to the front door,” two police officers arrived at the home and
arrested Myles. The scissors, a cell phone, and a plastic bag containing
methamphetamine were found on Myles during a patdown search.
      After Myles was arrested, Jake walked through the house with the
officers and made the following observations. The kitchen window had been
broken, and there was a hole next to the latch that locked the window. The
security system touch screen had been unplugged and was lying face down.
The kitchen lights and a lamp were on. Various items were moved around or
out of place, including the van keys. An empty juice box, as well as an empty
pack of cigarettes, were in the trash can. Jake had purchased the juice box,
but not the cigarettes. A crushed ginger ale can and a juice were on the
kitchen counter although they were normally kept in the closet or
refrigerator. Jake also found a Circle K bag, a can of malt liquor, a bag of
clothes, and a phone charger that did not belong to him.

4     Myles testified he grabbed the scissors because he was using them to
hold the piece of glass with which he smoked methamphetamine.

                                            5
      Jake had never met Myles and had never given Myles permission to
enter his home, use his utilities or property, or consume his food or
beverages.
         2.   The January 2021 Attempted Burglary (Count 2)
      After Myles’s entry into the house, Jake installed a Ring surveillance
system that provided him with real time or “simultaneous surveillance” of the
house on his cell phone. At 11:40 p.m. on January 14, 2021, Jake was alerted
by the Ring security system. When he looked at his cell phone, he saw “Myles
was back at [his] house.” Myles was in the back yard, holding a rock. He hit
the same kitchen window that was previously broken but the window did not
break.
      3.      The Uncharged December 2019 Burglary
      The prosecution presented evidence of an uncharged burglary pursuant
to Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b), to show planning, absence of
mistake, and a common modus operandi.
      Sara S. lived with her husband and young children in an apartment in
Vista. She knew Myles as “an old friend.” She had helped him in the past by
giving him food and letting him stay at her apartment for one day. She knew
Myles “had a drug problem” and he had been “in and out of rehab.”
      At 9:00 p.m. on December 22, 2019, Sara and her husband were inside
their apartment when “Myles showed up” and was “banging” on their front
door. Her husband asked Myles “why he was acting outrageous” and banging
on their door. Myles told them, “I’m going to break in, let me in, I’m going to
break in.” He was “yelling outrageous crazy stuff” and “saying things that
did not make any sense,” including that he believed Sara was being held
hostage by her husband. He was “yelling, screaming, saying I’m going to
break into your house, let me in, let me in.”

                                       6
      Sara then heard a loud noise. Myles had broken a window in her
children’s bedroom and was trying to get inside the apartment. Sara told
Myles she was calling 911. Myles had half his body through the window.
When Sara’s husband went to get a bat, Myles removed himself from the
window and began pacing back and forth outside the apartment. The
apartment’s security guard came by and “somehow got [Myles] to sit down
and was talking to him” before the police arrived. Sara was “very confused”
about Myles’s behavior because they had “never been . . . on bad terms.” He
“looked like he was intoxicated” or “maybe he was under the influence of
some type of drugs.”
      In addition to Sara’s testimony, the prosecution presented the jury with
evidence of Myles’s conviction of first degree residential burglary (§§ 459,

460, subd. (a)) of Sara’s apartment in case No. SCN408839.5
B.    Defense Case
      1.    Myles’s Post-Arrest Statements
      Myles presented evidence of his statements to the police officers who
arrested him for the uncharged burglary and the charged crimes. Officer
Ellyn Bell, who responded to Sara’s apartment on December 22, 2019,
testified she was unable to take a statement from Myles because he was
carrying on a conversation with himself. Officer Mackenzie Flynn responded

5      A minute order admitted in evidence showed that on April 17, 2020,
Myles pled guilty to the burglary charge. In the same case, Myles also pled
guilty to assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd.
(a)(4)), arising from an incident in which Myles stole a pack of cigarettes from
a convenience store and pushed the store clerk. Myles was out on bail or on
his own recognizance pending sentencing on this matter when he committed
the May 2020 burglary and January 2021 attempted burglary. This is the
basis of the 12022.1, subdivision (b) allegations attached to the current
offenses.

                                       7
to Jake’s house both times, on May 2, 2020 and January 14, 2021. Each time
Officer Flynn spoke with Myles, she had her bodyworn camera on.
      The bodyworn camera recording of Myles’s post-arrest interview on
May 2, 2020 was played for the jury. In it, Myles explained his mother
rented a home “around the corner” from Jake’s house “seven years ago.”
Jake’s house was on “the path [he used] to smoke or access [his] mom’s
house,” and it had “been empty for a few years.” An “old relative” of Myles
who sometimes stayed in Jake’s house told him he could stay there. Because
his relative “had no key for [him] to get in,” Myles entered the house by
breaking the back window and climbing in. He had been “staying [t]here” by
himself since the previous night. Other than the window, he had not
destroyed or taken any property from the house. He did drive the van to the
Circle K and explained, “I was told it was my car.” When he came back, he
intentionally parked the van in the driveway “so it wouldn’t be like [he] was
being sneaky . . . [he] wanted all the neighbors to see that [he] drove it.” The
van belonged to his “old relative” who “gave it to [him].” The relative also
told him “the whole house is [his].” Myles told Officer Flynn, “It’s my house.”
      Myles could not give Officer Flynn the name of the relative and
explained the relative usually contacted him on his cell phone. Myles told
Officer Flynn the relative had called him on his cell phone that morning. He
then unlocked his phone with the password so Officer Flynn could review his
recent calls. When Officer Flynn could not find any calls from such a person,
Myles explained the call came on his second phone but he did not know where
that phone was.
      When Officer Flynn contacted Myles the second time on January 14,
2021, she found his demeanor during her interactions with him to be
“serious,” and that he was “not joking.” Based on what she saw and heard,

                                       8
Officer Flynn did not think Myles “was in touch with reality.” She explained
that Myles “made several statements that both supported that he was within
. . . reality and statements that were not.”
      2.    Myles’s Testimony
      Myles has been treated by different doctors for mental health issues

since his “20s,” which included auditory and visual hallucinations.6 He has
been prescribed Abilify, Zyprexa, Prozac, and Wellbutrin. At the time of trial,
Myles was on the last three medications, which were administered to him by
the Sheriff’s Department while he was in their custody. At the time of trial,
he still heard voices. The medications he took “limits it” but
methamphetamine “enhances it.”
      Myles explained his auditory and visual hallucinations increased
following an “event” in January 2016. He described the “event” as:
“Something within me goes up my spine and opened up my pineal gland, it
went all the way up my back and opened up my paragon, my third eye. And
when it did, I looked to the right and I looked to the left, and it bellowed out
‘Earth’ -- and it was a voice of many wisdom waters and it just went --
(indicating noise) -- and it did it three times.” This “threw [his] reality into
another place.” Since the “event,” Myles had “been on a spiritual awaking
path.”
      Regarding the break-in at Sara’s apartment in December 2019, Myles
said he went there because he was homeless and cold, and he wanted to see
what Sara was doing. He was greeted by Sara’s husband, who would not let
Myles speak to Sara. Myles was “under the impression that women were
being sex trafficked” in a “spiritual” sense, and he believed Sara “was being

6     Myles was approximately 36 years old at the time of trial.

                                        9
held against her will” by her husband. Myles was concerned for Sara and so
he stayed until the police arrived so he “would know that she was actually
okay.” Based on this incident, Myles pled guilty to residential burglary
because “the [plea] deal . . . was going to get [him] out” of jail that same day.
      Myles had become aware of the Oceanside house in 2016 when it was
empty and under construction. Myles saw parallels between the house’s
construction progress and his own spiritual path. In 2018, he got the house
address to contact the owner about renting it, and he saw numbers in the
address that struck him as coincidental.
      Myles explained: In 2020, “through internal stimuli I was
communicated to by my entity that that place was actually mine -- or was
going to be given to me -- that it was part of my walk and at the end of my
spiritual walk . . . that house was to represent me being home and me being
done . . . it’s like a gift or whatever for me going through what I went
through.” These communications came from his “entity” named “Archangel
Michael.” It was “very normal” for the Archangel Michael to appear to Myles
“to where [Myles] could see a vague outline of him.” One day the Archangel
Michael told Myles, “that’s your house[.]” Myles believed the house “was
waiting for [him] to be able to start studying and start delivering a message
to the people” because he was “Jesus Chris[t] reincarnated.” Because he was
Jesus Christ reincarnated, Myles “could easily see how there would be a
house waiting for [him] at the end.”
      When Myles entered the house in May 2020, he believed the house and
its contents were his. He went in because he was homeless and cold. He did
not intend to steal when he entered. But while inside, he drank a juice box
and he ate “their” ice cream. He went into the garage and saw a van. He
took the battery out, charged it, put the battery back in, started up the van,

                                        10
and drove it to the Circle K. When he returned to the house, he left the van
in the driveway “on purpose” because he wanted the neighbors to know he
was there. Myles did not remove anything from the house. When asked why
not, he responded, “Why would I want to steal from myself?”
      In the morning, Myles was sitting in the living room when he heard
“keys jingling” at the door. He opened the door to find a man standing there.
The man asked Myles “what was [he] doing there[?]” Myles responded, “I
have permission to be here, it’s my house.” Myles asked the man, “who are
you . . . are you Jake?” Myles had seen Jake’s name on bills and paperwork
inside the house. When the man said he was Jake, Myles told him, “if you
can show me ID, . . . I’ll leave, because I was under the impression that it was
okay for me to be there. So unless you show me that you’re this guy, I’m not
leaving.” When Jake complied, Myles went to gather his “stuff.” Myles
grabbed the scissors that he was using to hold the piece of glass he used to
smoke methamphetamines.
      Myles returned to the house on January 14, 2021. He explained that
he was in custody facing charges stemming from the first time he entered the
Oceanside house when he was unexpectedly released from custody on his own
recognizance. This “completely surprised and shocked” him. His release led
Myles to think, “I’m Jesus Christ reincarnated” and “everybody is with me,
. . . they can understand that I’m Jesus. They understand that that was my
house.” When he returned to the house, he planned to enter it because he
believed it was his. He wanted to get out of the cold because he was homeless
and freezing. He did not intend to steal anything inside.
      On cross-examination, Myles acknowledged he understood there was a
difference between his spiritual reality and his physical reality. He denied
intending to commit theft when he entered Sara’s apartment, but he agreed

                                      11
he was capable of forming the intent to commit theft. The same day he broke
into Sara’s apartment, he stole a pack of cigarettes from a convenience store.
He had also stolen food when he was homeless and hungry, even though he
did not “agree with it” and explained, “But me doing something to a person’s
home is a completely different thing that I did not do.”
      In 2018 and 2019, he knew the Oceanside house was somebody else’s
house. He did not come to believe it was his house until 2020. He admitted
he unplugged the touch screen for the alarm system after he entered the
house. He explained he did so because “the house wasn’t ready” or “prepared
for [him] yet,” and he knew he was entering it early to get out of the cold.
“[S]o of course [he] unplugged the alarm system.”
      3.    The Forensic Psychologist’s Testimony
      Raymond Gerard Murphy, Ph.D., is a clinical and forensic psychologist
on the Superior Court panel for mental health professionals. He conducted a
clinical evaluation of Myles, which included interviewing Miles on five
separate occasions, reviewing police reports and recordings of Myles’s
interviews with law enforcement.
      Dr. Murphy’s opinion of Myles was that he was bipolar with psychotic
features. Myles suffered from a major depressive order with periods of manic
activity, and he exhibited psychotic behavior “which took on the dimensions
of a delusional type of thinking.”
      Myles’s symptoms included auditory and visual hallucinations as well
as delusions. Zyprexa is a major antipsychotic medication. If Myles was
being administered Wellbutrin, Prozac, and Zyprexa by the San Diego
Sheriff’s Department, this would be consistent with Murphy’s opinion that
Myles was bipolar with psychotic features. Myles also had substance abuse
problems, including use of methamphetamines. Methamphetamines have

                                       12
the effect of exacerbating a mental health condition and can increase the
impact of delusions on an individual.
      Dr. Murphy opined that on May 2, 2020 and January 14, 2021, Myles
appeared to be experiencing delusions such that he believed the house was
his. A delusion is “a belief in something that’s not true.” Delusional
symptoms vary significantly. Some people have fixed, specific delusions, such
as erotomania, in which the individual believes someone famous loves them.
Or a person may be categorized as a “general delusional,” in which “the
individual feels that they have significant powers” and “that people are out to
get them.” Some delusional people may be so seriously impaired they are
incompetent. Others may understand what is going on around them and may
be able to conduct ordinary life activities, like going to the store.
      Dr. Murphy did not believe Myles was malingering, but he agreed
Myles had incentive to malinger. Malingering means to fabricate symptoms
for the purpose of secondary gain. If a person made bizarre statements
without believing them, he would be malingering rather than delusional.
Dr. Murphy acknowledged that Myles was not mentally incompetent.
Individuals suffering from bipolar disorder with psychotic features can still
exhibit goal-directed behavior. Myles’s current functioning “appears to be
quite lucid” and Myles “was well aware of his current circumstances.”
                                        III.
                                Jury Instructions
      As we have noted, the only disputed issue at trial was whether Myles
acted with the mental state required for convictions on first degree
residential burglary and attempted first degree residential burglary. On this
disputed issue, the trial court gave the jury four relevant instructions.

                                        13
A.    CALCRIM No. 1700 Burglary
      The jury was instructed that to prove Myles was guilty of burglary as
charged in count 1, the prosecution had to establish:
      “1. The defendant entered [the Oceanside home];
      “2. When he entered [the Oceanside home], he intended to
          commit theft; [¶] AND
      “3. The structure that the defendant entered was a
          noncommercial establishment.”
This instruction also told the jury: “To decide whether the defendant
intended to commit theft please refer to the separate instructions . . . on that
crime.”
B.    CALCRIM No. 460 Attempted Burglary
      The jury was instructed that to prove Myles was guilty of attempted
burglary as charged in count 2, the prosecution had to establish:
      “1. The defendant took a direct but ineffective step toward
          committing a burglary; [¶] AND
      “2. The defendant intended to commit a burglary.”
This instruction also told the jury: “To decide whether the defendant
intended to commit burglary, please refer to the separate instructions . . . on
that crime.”
C.    Modified CALCRIM No. 1800 Theft Defined
      On the elements of theft, the jury was given a modified version of the
CALCRIM No. 1800 pattern instruction.
      The unmodified part of the instruction told the jury:
      “The defendant is charged in Counts 1 and 2 with burglary and
attempted burglary. Both crimes require an intent to commit theft. Theft is
defined as:
      “1. Taking possession of property owned by someone else;
      “2. Taking the property without the owner’s consent;

                                       14
      “3. When taking the property the defendant intended to deprive
          the owner of it permanently or to remove it from the owner’s
          possession for so extended a period of time that the owner
          would be deprived of a major portion of the value or
          enjoyment of the property;
      “AND
      “4. The defendant moved the property, even a small distance,
          and kept it for any period of time, however brief.”
The instruction also included the optional sentence from the pattern
instruction: “The property taken can be of any value, no matter how slight.”
      At the prosecution’s request, and over the objection of the defense, the
trial court added the following sentence to the end of the theft instruction so
that the modified part of the instruction told the jury:
      “The unauthorized use of utilities in a residence or consumption
      of property within the home is considered larceny for purposes of
      Burglary.”
      Although not part of the instructions read to the jury, the written
instruction sent into the deliberation room with the jury also included the
following notes underneath the instruction:
      “Copy of CALCRIM No. 1800, Revised August 2016, except
      adaptations and utilities pinpoint language from People v.
      Martinez (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 581, 585; People v. Dingle (1985)
      174 Cal.App.3d 21, 29 (holding that making a long-distance call
      constituted intent to commit larceny); In re Leanna W. (2004) 120
      Cal.App.4th 735, 742 (Establishing that theft of utilities could not
      be proven without evidence that entrant intended to use utilities
      and did in fact use utilities).”
These notes do not appear in the bench notes for the CALCRIM No. 1800
pattern instruction.
D.    CALCRIM No. 3406 Mistake of Fact
      The jury was also instructed on the defense’s theory of mistake of fact,
as follows:

                                       15
            “The defendant is not guilty of Burglary and Attempted
      Burglary if he did not have the intent or mental state required to
      commit the crime because he did not know a fact or mistakenly
      believed a fact.
            “If the defendant’s conduct would have been lawful under
      the facts as he believed them to be, he did not commit Burglary
      and Attempted Burglary.
            “If you find that the defendant believed that Jake[‘s] house
      was the defendant’s house, he did not have the specific intent or
      mental state required for Burglary and Attempted Burglary.
            “If you have a reasonable doubt about whether the
      defendant had the specific intent or mental state required for
      Burglary and Attempted Burglary you must find him not guilty
      of those crimes.”
                                       IV.
                 Closing Arguments, Verdict, and Sentencing
      The prosecutor argued Myles was guilty of burglary and attempted
burglary because he acted with intent to steal when he entered and
attempted to enter Jake’s home. He asserted that all the physical evidence
pointed to the fact that Myles harbored such an intent at the time of the May
2020 entry. He argued breaking and entering through a window, and
unplugging a security system, were acts that showed criminal intent. He
reminded the jury that Myles had admitted to eating food and drinking
beverages inside the home. He argued, “the best evidence that somebody has
an intent to steal, [is] the fact that they actually steal things.” Because
Myles had the intent to steal when he entered the home in May 2020, the
prosecutor argued, this was also his intent when he tried to reenter the home
in January 2021.
      Defense counsel told the jury the only disputed issue in the case was
whether Myles acted with intent to commit theft when he entered and tried
to enter Jake’s home, and emphasized that the prosecution had the burden to

                                       16
prove this issue beyond a reasonable doubt. She argued Myles did not have
the intent to steal on either occasion because he expressly denied acting with
the intent to take anything in the home and because he was experiencing
delusions that led him to believe the home and its contents were his. She
pointed out that Dr. Murphy testified Myles was exhibiting delusional
thought processes when he was interviewed by law enforcement. She further
argued Myles’s actions when he was inside the home were consistent with the
belief he was the owner, and inconsistent with the behavior of a person who
intends to rob or steal, since he did not take any items of significant value.
      In rebuttal to defense counsel’s argument that Myles lacked the
required intent to steal, the prosecutor directed the jury to the modified
portion of the theft instruction (CALCRIM No. 1800). The prosecutor then
argued: “[I]t is not the intent to commit theft and take a diamond necklace[.]
[T]he jury instruction is very clear that the value can be slight, even
nonexistent. And in fact, that jury instruction does tell you that you can
consume electricity and food and other items. . . . It’s just that you consume
and that you steal. When you enter into a home and you use the items as if
they were your own, when you charge your phone, when you drink the juice,
when you sleep in there, when you break the window, when you disarm a
system, you are stealing. That is you using the items in the home. That is
theft.”
      After deliberating for six hours, the jury found Myles guilty of burglary
(§ 459; count 1) and attempted burglary (§§ 459/664; count 2). The jury found
true that the burglary and attempted burglary were of an inhabited dwelling
house (§ 460, subd. (a)), and that a person was present in the residence
during the commission of the burglary making it a “ ‘violent felony’ ” (§ 667.5,
subd. (c)(21)). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true the out-

                                       17
on-bail enhancement allegations (§ 12022.1, subd. (b)), as well as allegations
Myles had suffered a serious felony prior (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and strike prior
(§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, & 668).
      In December 2021, the trial court held a combined sentencing hearing
in case Nos. SCN422268 and SCN408839. In the present case, case
No. SCN422268, Myles received a total prison sentence of 15 years and four
months. On count 1, the court imposed a total prison term of 14 years,
consisting of the upper term of six years for the first degree burglary, doubled
to 12 years due to the strike prior, plus two years for the out-on-bail
enhancement. On count 2, the total consecutive term was 16 months,
consisting of one-third the midterm of two years for the attempted burglary,
doubled due to the strike prior. The court either struck or imposed
concurrent terms with respect to the remaining counts and allegations.
      In the case involving the burglary of Sara’s apartment, case
No. SCN408839, Myles received a total sentence of two years and four
months, consecutive to the term imposed in this case. The aggregate term in
both cases was 17 years and eight months. Myles filed a timely notice of
appeal in the present case.
                                 DISCUSSION
      On appeal, Myles contends the trial court erred by modifying the
CALCRIM No. 1800 instruction defining theft by larceny. Specifically, he
contends it was error for the court to add the sentence, “The unauthorized
use of utilities in a residence or consumption of property within the home is
considered larceny for purposes of Burglary,” and to include the notes of
appellate decisions with parenthetical summaries of burglary charges arising
from alleged incidental use of utilities and consumption of food inside a
victim’s house. Myles argues these modifications were erroneous and

                                       18
argumentative, and resulted in the jury receiving a definition of theft that
lightened the prosecution’s burden of proof.
      We agree. We reverse on the prejudicial instructional error, but we
reject Myles’s claim that there was insufficient evidence supporting his
burglary and attempted burglary convictions. We need not and do not reach
Myles’s remaining claim on appeal in which he seeks a remand for
resentencing in accordance with an ameliorative change in the determinate
sentencing law.
                                         I.
            Myles Has Not Forfeited His Claims of Error for Appeal
      The People first contend Myles has forfeited any appellate challenge to
the inclusion of the case citations and parenthetical summaries in the
modified CALCRIM No. 1800 instruction. Although Myles’s trial counsel
objected to the proposed modification to add the sentence regarding
unauthorized use of utilities and consumption of property, the People argue
counsel’s failure to separately object to inclusion of the case citations and
parenthetical summaries forecloses his claim of that asserted error. Not so.
      “Generally, a party forfeits any challenge to a jury instruction that was
correct in law and responsive to the evidence if the party fails to object in the
trial court.” (People v. Franco (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 713, 719.) Myles’s
claim, however, is that inclusion of the citations and parenthetical
summaries were argumentative and not “correct in law,” and contributed to
lightening the prosecution’s burden to prove all elements of burglary and
attempted burglary, in violation of his federal constitutional rights. No
objection was necessary to preserve this claim. (People v. Smithey (1999) 20
Cal.4th 936, 976, fn. 7 [“Defendant’s claim . . . the instruction is not ‘correct in
law,’ and that it violated his right to due process of law . . . is not of the type

                                         19
that must be preserved by objection.”].) “The appellate court may . . . review
any instruction given, . . . even though no objection was made thereto in the
lower court, if the substantial rights of the defendant were affected thereby.”
(§ 1259; see People v. Johnson (2015) 60 Cal.4th 966, 993 [“even without a
request, a defendant may argue the court erred in instructing the jury ‘if the

substantial rights of the defendant were affected thereby.’ (§ 1259.)”].)7
                                       II.
               The Trial Court Committed Instructional Error
      We review de novo claims of instructional error like those that Myles
has asserted. “The independent or de novo standard of review is applicable in
assessing whether instructions correctly state the law [citations] and also
whether instructions effectively direct a finding adverse to a defendant by
removing an issue from the jury’s consideration.” (People v. Posey (2004) 32
Cal.4th 193, 218.) We consider “whether it is reasonably likely the jury
understood the challenged instruction in a way that undermined the
presumption of innocence or tended to relieve the prosecution of the burden
to prove defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Paysinger
(2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 26, 30.)
      On our de novo review, we conclude the trial court erred by modifying
the CALCRIM No. 1800 pattern instruction. As we will explain, the
modifications resulted in the jury receiving an alternative definition of theft
that was erroneous and argumentative, and had the effect of lightening the
prosecution’s burden of proof with respect to the mens rea required for
burglary and attempted burglary.

7     Because we conclude an objection was not necessary, we need not and
do not consider Myles’s alternative argument that his trial counsel rendered
ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object.

                                       20
      Burglary is committed when a person enters a structure with the intent

to commit a felony or theft.8 (§ 459.) The entry does not need to be a
trespass. (People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 954, disapproved on another
ground in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22.) “One may by
liable for burglary upon entry with the requisite intent to commit a felony or
a theft[.]” (People v. Montoya (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1027, 1041–1042.) “The duty
to define such so-called target offenses [of burglary] and instruct on their
elements has become well established.” (People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th
287, 349 (Hughes).)
      “The elements of theft by larceny are well settled: the offense is
committed by every person who (1) takes possession (2) of personal property
(3) owned or possessed by another, (4) by means of trespass and (5) with
intent to steal the property, and (6) carries the property away.” (Davis,
supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 305.) “The act of taking personal property from the
possession of another is always a trespass unless the owner consents to the
taking freely and unconditionally or the taker has a legal right to take the
property. [Citation.] The intent to steal or animus furandi is the intent,

8      Section 459 uses the phrase “intent to commit grand or petit larceny”
rather than “intent to commit theft.” However, both phrases have the same
meaning under California law. “Section 484, subdivision (a), defining theft,
was amended in 1927 to merge the former separately defined crimes of
larceny, embezzlement and false pretenses into the general crime of theft.
This merger, however, did not change the elements of the former crimes.”
(People v. Dingle (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 21, 29 (Dingle); accord People v.
Davis (1998) 19 Cal.4th 301, 304–305 (Davis).) “Since that time, any
statutory reference to ‘larceny’ is read as if it were the word ‘theft.’ (§ 490a.)”
(People v. Avery (2002) 27 Cal.4th 49, 53, fn. 4. (Avery).) CALCRIM No. 1800
is the pattern instruction for theft by larceny. Because this was the species of
theft the prosecution sought to prove in this case, when we use the term
theft, we are referring to theft by larceny.

                                        21
without a good faith claim of right, to permanently deprive the owner of
possession.” (Ibid., fns. omitted.)
      “California courts have long held that theft by larceny requires the
intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession of the property.”
(Avery, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 54; id. at p. 57 [“ ‘[T]he intent to deprive an
owner of the main value of his property is equivalent to the intent to
permanently deprive an owner of property.’ ”].) Unless the taker acts with
this intent, “there is no larceny.” (5 Witkin, Cal. Criminal Law (4th ed. 2022)
Crimes Against Property, § 23.) “ ‘It is clear that a charge of larceny, which
requires an intent to steal, could not be founded on a mere careless taking
away of another’s goods.’ ” (People v. Devine (1892) 95 Cal. 227, 229; People v.
Photo (1941) 45 Cal.App.2d 345, 353 [“Felonious intent is an essence of the
crime of larceny.”].)
      A defendant who takes property in the mistaken belief it belongs to him
therefore lacks the intent required for theft. (People v. Hendrix (2022) 13
Cal.5th 933, 940 (Hendrix).) This type of mistake of fact claim “is often
described as a ‘defense’ to the charge. [Citation.] But the term is somewhat
misleading, because mistake of fact is, generally speaking, ‘not a true
affirmative defense.’ [Citation.] It is, rather, an assertion by the defendant
that a particular factual error in his perception of the world led him to lack
the mens rea required for the crime.” (Ibid., fn. omitted.)
      Here, the unmodified part of the CALCRIM No. 1800 instruction
correctly defined theft as: “1. Taking possession of property owned by
someone else; [¶] 2. Taking the property without the owner’s consent; [¶]
3. When taking the property the defendant intended to deprive the owner of
it permanently or to remove it from the owner’s possession for so extended a
period of time that the owner would be deprived of a major portion of the

                                        22
value or enjoyment of the property; [¶] AND [¶] 4. The defendant moved the
property, even a small distance, and kept it for any period of time, however
brief.” The third element described the required specific intent.
      The jury was also correctly instructed in accordance with the standard
CALCRIM No. 1800 instruction that the property taken could be “of any
value, no matter how slight.” (See People v. Franco (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 535,
542–543 [the taking of a carton of cigarettes could support a petty theft
conviction, even if the jury found the carton was empty]; People v. Martinez
(2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 581, 585 (Martinez) [defendant’s intent to take a
shower using even a miniscule amount of the homeowner’s soap, shampoo,
and hot water constituted the intent to commit theft].)
      But the additional sentence the trial court added to the pattern
instruction at the prosecution’s request gave the jury an alternate,

incomplete definition of theft that omitted the required specific intent.9 This
modification told the jury: “The unauthorized use of utilities in a residence or
consumption of property within the home is considered larceny for purposes
of Burglary.” (Italics added.) The phrases “use of utilities” and “consumption
of property” described acts which, in an appropriate case, may constitute a

taking of property.10 The word “unauthorized” conveyed the concept that

9     We assume the jury understood that larceny is synonymous with theft.
(See Amer. Heritage Dictionary (2d College ed. 1985) p. 714, col. 2 [defining
“larceny,” in part, as “theft”]; People v. Gray (2005) 37 Cal.4th 168, 231
[jurors are presumed to comprehend the court’s instructions].)

10     It is not necessarily true that every case involving incidental use of
utilities in a home will result in even a slight deprivation to the homeowner.
Here, for example, Myles’s only admitted use of utilities involved charging a
vehicle battery that belonged to Jake. Even assuming this involved use of
the home’s electricity (and no evidence was presented that this was so), it is

                                      23
someone (perhaps the owner, although the sentence does not specify this) had
not consented to the use or consumption. But nothing in this description of
the offense of theft conveyed that the defendant had to act with the specific
intent to permanently deprive the owner of the utilities used, or the property
consumed. By leaving out any description of the defendant’s mental state,
the modification effectively turned theft into a strict liability offense.
       We agree with Myles this case presents an example of the danger of
relying on appellate opinions to “embellish” on standard jury instructions.
(People v. Colantuono (1994) 7 Cal.4th 206, 221–222 [“we admonish trial
courts not to embellish on the standard jury instructions for assault and
assault with a deadly weapon unless compelled by the peculiar facts of the
case”].) “The discussion in an appellate decision is directed to the issue
presented. The reviewing court generally does not contemplate a subsequent
transmutation of its words into jury instructions and hence does not choose
them with that end in mind.” (Id. at p. 221, fn. 13.) Here, the prosecution
evidently crafted the modification based on the facts of the three appellate
decisions referenced in the notes in the written instruction provided to the
jury: Martinez, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th 581; Dingle, supra, 174 Cal.App.3d 21;
and In re Leanna W. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 735 (Leanna W.). These cases
all dealt with narrow issues arising from a burglary involving defendant’s
alleged incidental use of utilities and consumption of items inside the victim’s
home. None of them involved a claim the defendant believed the home was
his.
       In Martinez, the defendant was convicted of burglary after admitting at
trial that he entered the victim’s home with the intent of taking a shower

debatable whether the use resulted in any permanent or extended
deprivation of property to Jake.

                                        24
with soap and shampoo. (Martinez, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at pp. 584, 585.)
On appeal, the defendant argued the “ ‘miniscule amount’ ” of soap, shampoo,
and hot water used were too insignificant in value to be considered property
for purposes of section 484, subdivision (a). This court affirmed on the basis
that an item qualifies as property for purposes of the theft statute so long as
it has “some intrinsic value, however slight.” (Martinez, at pp. 585–586.)
      In Dingle, the defendant was charged with committing burglary by
entering his murder victim’s home with the intent to commit theft. (Dingle,
supra, 174 Cal.App.3d at p. 29.) The alleged theft occurred when the
defendant placed an unauthorized long-distance call from the victim’s home
phone and the charge for the call was billed to the victim. (Id. at pp. 25, 29.)
On appeal, the defendant argued the definition of theft for purposes of
burglary is limited to larceny. This court disagreed and held the term “theft”
embraces other kinds of unlawful takings, and that the defendant’s act was a
form of “theft akin to false pretenses” that could support a charge of burglary.
(Id. at pp. 29–30.)
      The court in Leanna W. held that a juvenile court’s finding of burglary
could not be upheld based on evidence the lights were on and the
homeowner’s liquor was missing after the juvenile had an unauthorized party
in her grandmother’s home, because there was no evidence the juvenile was
the one who consumed the liquor or turned on the lights, and there was
therefore no evidentiary support for the inference the juvenile intended to
commit theft at the time of entry. (Leanna W., supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at
pp. 741–742.)
      In each of these cases, because there was no question of mistaken
ownership, the defendant’s intent to use the utilities or consume the property
while inside the victim’s house could be equated with an intent to

                                       25
permanently deprive the victim of those items. There was no need for these
courts to separately address whether the defendant’s mental state matched
the mental state required for theft. As a consequence, modifying the theft
instruction to provide the jury with a definition of theft that was based on
summaries of the holdings of these cases gave the jury a truncated definition
of theft that left out the required specific intent.
      Not only was the modification erroneous as a matter of law, but it was
also impermissibly argumentative. An argumentative instruction is one that
invites the jury to draw an inference favorable to one party from specified
items of evidence on a disputed question of fact. (People v. Wright (1988) 45
Cal.3d 1126, 1135.) “A court may—and, indeed, must—refuse an instruction
that is argumentative, i.e., of such a character as to invite the jury to draw
inferences favorable to one of the parties from specified items of evidence.”
(People v. Gordon (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1223, 1276, disapproved on another
ground in People v. Edwards (1991) 54 Cal.3d 787, 835.)
      Although the modification here did not go so far as to specify items of
evidence, it defined the offense in terms of basic facts (use of utilities,
consumption of property) that were both undisputed and easily identifiable
from the evidence. It used mandatory language, telling the jury that either of
the specified acts “is considered larceny for purposes of Burglary.” (Italics
added.) And because the modification appeared at the end of the instruction
and defined the offense of theft in terms of fact patterns similar to the fact
patterns before the jury, there is a reasonable likelihood the jury would have
understood it as presenting a definition that incorporated all the legal
requirements of the crime in one neat factual summary.
      The effect the modification likely had on the jury can easily be seen if
one considers the evidence already before the jury when it received the

                                        26
instruction. By that time, Myles had already admitted to drinking a juice
box, eating ice cream, and charging the van’s battery while he was inside
Jake’s house. It was therefore undisputed that Myles “use[d] utilities in a
residence” and “consum[ed] property within the home.” Jake’s testimony
supplied the additional fact—and the only other circumstance necessary to
complete the crime, according to the modified instruction—that the use and
consumption was “unauthorized.” As phrased, the modification gave the jury
no option except to reach the conclusion favoring the prosecution—that Myles
committed the target offense of theft after entering Jake’s home, a conclusion
the prosecution could then rely on as circumstantial proof that Myles
intended to commit theft at the time of entry.
      Although we would find instructional error on the basis of the foregoing
modification alone, the addition of the notes with parenthetical summaries of
Dingle (“holding that making a long-distance [phone] call constituted intent
to commit larceny”) and Leanna W. (“[e]stablishing that theft of utilities
could not be proven without evidence that entrant intended to use utilities
and did in fact use utilities”) exacerbated the error. Although the trial court
did not read this text to the jury, it was included (we assume inadvertently)
in the written instruction provided to the jury during their deliberations.
Generally, when there is a discrepancy between a written instruction and an
oral instruction, the written instruction controls. (See, e.g., People v. Wilson
(2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 803; People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 717.)
      The parties debate whether the summaries of Dingle and Leanna W.,
which do not appear in the bench notes for CALCRIM No. 1800, were
accurate. Although we agree with Myles they were inaccurate, that is beside
the point. Accurate or not, they tended to reinforce the error introduced by
the earlier modification of presenting mere use of utilities as a form of theft,

                                       27
with no consideration given to whether the use was committed with the
required criminal intent. (“Intent to use utilities” does not constitute such
criminal intent.)
      The trial court’s erroneous modifications of the CALCRIM No. 1800
instruction had the effect of lightening the prosecution’s burden of proof with
respect to burglary and attempted burglary. A jury cannot determine that a
defendant intended to commit a crime unless it is properly instructed on all
the elements of that crime. By leaving out the mental state required for
theft, the erroneous modification removed the need for the prosecution to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt one of the essential facts necessary to
establish that Myles’s intent when he entered or attempted to enter the
house constituted the intent to commit theft.
      Specific intent offenses are more difficult for the prosecution to prove.
“ ‘ “While the existence of the specific intent charged at the time of entering a
building is necessary to constitute burglary in order to sustain a conviction,
this element is rarely susceptible of direct proof and must usually be inferred
from all of the facts and circumstances disclosed by the evidence.” ’ ” (People
v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 669 (Holt).)
      Under the facts of this case, establishing that Myles acted with the
intent to commit theft was a particularly challenging task for the
prosecution. The modification of the CALCRIM No. 1800 instruction made
this task easier. It defined theft in terms of acts Myles undisputedly
committed after entering the home (use of utilities, consumption of property),
and told the jury these acts are criminal to the extent they were
“unauthorized,” which they were in light of Jake’s uncontradicted testimony
that he never authorized the use or consumption. Thus to the extent the jury
relied on the alternate definition of theft added by the modification, it was a

                                       28
foregone conclusion it would find Myles committed theft. Having made this
finding, it was but a small step for the jury to infer that Myles intended to
commit theft upon entering the home, and that he harbored the same intent
at the time of the attempted entry. In this way, the erroneous modification
lightened the prosecution’s burden of proof on the charges of burglary and
attempted burglary.
      The People do not argue, and we do not find, that the other instructions
the jury received cured the error. The trial court’s obligation to correctly
define burglary extends to defining the target offense that the defendant
allegedly intended to commit at the time of entry. (Hughes, supra, 27 Cal.4th
at p. 349.) Although the jury was instructed on the defense of mistake of fact
pursuant to CALCRIM No. 3406, this instruction did not define theft. As our
high court has explained, a jury must receive correct instructions on the
substantive mens rea requirement for burglary as well as on any mistake of
fact defense. (Cf. Hendrix, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 941 [instructional error
occurs where the substantive mens rea instruction for burglary and the
mistake of fact instruction relating to burglary are not “aligned”].)
                                       III.
                          The Error Was Prejudicial
      The People contend that to the extent the trial court committed
instructional error, we should assess the prejudicial effect of the error under
the Watson standard for reviewing errors of state law. (People v. Watson
(1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson) [reversal required only if it is reasonably
probable a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been
reached absent the error].) Citing Hendrix, supra, 13 Cal.5th 933, they argue
that review under the more stringent Chapman standard for reviewing errors
of federal constitutional dimension (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S.

                                       29
18 (Chapman)) is not required because the error was “not tantamount to
misinstruction on an element of the offense of burglary,” and did not
“misdescribe[ ] an element” or “relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove
any element of the crime.”
      We disagree that the trial court’s instructional error was one of state
law only. “Among the constitutional errors subject to Chapman review is
misinstruction of the jury on one or more elements of the offense. [Citations.]
This is because the federal Constitution requires ‘criminal convictions to rest
upon a jury determination that the defendant is guilty of every element of the
crime with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt.’ [Citations.] A
jury misinstruction that relieves the prosecution of its burden to prove an
element of the crime—by either misdescribing the element or omitting it
entirely—violates this requirement.” (Hendrix, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 942.)
      In Hendrix, the prosecution claimed the defendant entered the victim’s
home intending to commit theft. The defendant claimed he entered the house
under the mistaken belief it was his cousin’s house. (Hendrix, supra, 13
Cal.5th at pp. 936–937.) The trial court gave the jury a mistake of fact
instruction that erroneously told the jury the defendant’s mistaken belief was
a defense to burglary only if it was reasonable. (Id. at p. 938.) This was
error, because an unreasonable but honest mistaken belief can negate specific
intent. (Id. at p. 939.) The issue before our Supreme Court in Hendrix was
whether the error in the mistake of fact instruction was “tantamount to a
misinstruction on the mental, or mens rea, element of the offense, requiring
the application of Chapman review,” or whether it constituted a mere state
law error in a mistake or voluntary intoxication defense, a type of
instructional error generally reviewed for prejudice under Watson. (Hendrix,
at pp. 942–943.) The Court ultimately found it unnecessary to decide

                                      30
whether Chapman or Watson applied because it found the error prejudicial
even under the less stringent Watson standard. (Hendrix, at pp. 944–949.)
      Here, unlike Hendrix, the instructional error was “tantamount to a
misinstruction on the mental, or mens rea, element of the offense[.]”
(Hendrix, supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 942–943.) The attempted burglary
instruction (CALCRIM No. 460) told the jury to refer to the burglary
instruction to decide whether Myles attempted to enter the house with the
required intent to commit burglary. The burglary instruction (CALCRIM
No. 1700), in turn, told the jury to refer to the theft instruction to decide
whether he entered the house with the required intent to commit theft. The
theft instruction (CALCRIM No. 1800) was thus incorporated by reference
directly in the burglary instruction and indirectly in the attempted burglary
instruction. It was essential to the jury’s understanding of the mental state
required to commit each of the charged offenses.
      The unmodified part of the theft instruction was the only offense
instruction that made it explicitly clear Myles’s culpability for the charged
offenses hinged on the prosecution’s ability to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that he intended to deprive someone else of their property when he
entered and attempted to enter the Oceanside home. The modified part of
the theft instruction left out this requirement, allowing the jury to convict
Myles of burglary and attempted burglary even in the absence of proof
beyond a reasonable doubt that his mental state at the time of the entry and
attempted entry matched the mental state required to form the intent to
commit theft. Thus, unlike Hendrix, the instructional error in this case was
an error that impinged on Myles’s federal constitutional rights. (Cf. Hendrix,
supra, 13 Cal.5th at pp. 942–943; see Hughes, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 353
[applying Chapman to assess prejudice of failure to instruct on elements of

                                        31
target offense of burglary]; People v. Aledamat (2019) 8 Cal.5th 1, 3–5, 9
[Chapman standard of review applies when a trial court instructs a jury with
two theories of guilt, one of which is incorrect].)
      Even so, much like the Hendrix court, we would find the instructional
error prejudicial even under Watson. As we have by now made amply clear,
the only disputed issue at trial was whether Myles intended to commit theft
when he entered and attempted to enter Jake’s home. In her closing
argument to the jury, defense counsel went so far as to concede all other
elements of the burglary and attempted burglary charges in counts 1 and 2.
As in Hendrix, “[t]he potential effect of the error was considerable in this
case[.]” (Hendrix, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 945.)
      The evidence that Myles intended to commit theft at the time of the
May 2020 entry and January 2021 attempted entry was not strong. For its
part, the prosecution argued breaking the kitchen window to enter the home,
and unplugging the security system touch screen, were evidence Myles was
intending to commit theft. However, these actions were equally consistent
with an intent to trespass. The only other acts the prosecution could point to
as evidence of Myles’s intent to commit theft were his incidental use of items
around the house. However, this was weak evidence that Myles had the
specific intent to steal at the time of entry, and it was entirely consistent with
Myles’s defense that he acted under the delusional belief he was the home’s
owner.
      Myles, on the other hand, testified his only intent on each occasion was
to get out of the cold, a goal that could be accomplished merely by going
indoors, without any use of the home’s energy. Moreover, the defense
presented ample evidence that in May 2020 and January 2021 Myles’s
understanding of reality was affected by delusions that caused him to believe

                                        32
the home and its contents were his. Under this delusional view, even
assuming that on each occasion Myles was intending to use the home’s
utilities or consume any food or beverages he might find in the house, this
would not amount to an intent to permanently deprive the owner of property
but rather would constitute an intent to have the owner—Myles—enjoy his
own property.
      The prosecution’s statements in closing arguments magnified the
instructional error. The prosecutor argued, “The best evidence that
somebody has an intent to steal, [is] the fact that they actually steal things.”
Then in rebuttal argument, the prosecution specifically directed the jury to
the erroneous instruction as the basis for an argument that to “consume” was
synonymous with to “steal,” and told the jury that “using the items in the
home . . . is theft.”
      Nor is it possible to determine on this record that the jury made the
required findings despite the error. The mistake of fact instruction told the
jury “[i]f you find” Myles believed Jake’s house was Myles’s house, then Myles
did not “have the specific intent or mental state required for Burglary and
Attempted Burglary.” This signaled an affirmative finding of Myles’s
mistaken belief about property ownership was necessary to negate the
mental state required for the charged offenses, thereby placing the burden of
proof on the defense to prove his mental state was not culpable.
      The only instruction that made clear the prosecution bore the burden to
prove Myles’s mental state with respect to property ownership was culpable
was the unmodified portion of the theft instruction. The modification
simplified theft so as to make Myles’s knowledge of property ownership
irrelevant to his culpability. Under the instructions given to the jury, it was
possible for the jury to convict Myles by simultaneously not making the

                                       33
affirmative finding required by the mistake in fact instruction, while also not
considering whether the prosecution met its burden to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that Myles acted with the intent to deprive the house’s
owner of property. Thus, it is not possible to determine from the jury’s
verdict that it found the prosecution proved all elements of burglary and
attempted burglary beyond a reasonable doubt despite the erroneous theft
instruction.
      On this record, there is at least “ ‘ “ ‘a reasonable chance, more than an
abstract possibility’ ” ’ ” Myles would have obtained a more favorable outcome
on the burglary and attempted burglary charges had the jury not been given
an instruction that equated theft with the mere unauthorized use of utilities
or consumption of property in a home. (Hendrix, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 944;
see id. at pp. 946–950.) As our high court has explained, “a hung jury, as
opposed to an acquittal, is a ‘more favorable’ (Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d at
p. 836) outcome for purposes of harmless error review under Watson.”
(Hendrix, at p. 947, fn. 6.) Assuming the jury believed Myles entered and
attempted to enter the house planning to use its utilities or consume any food
he might find inside, at least one juror could easily have remained
unconvinced that in intending to use or consume these items, Myles also
intended to permanently deprive the owner of them. (See id. at p. 947.)
      As a result, we will reverse Myles’s convictions of the charges in counts
1 and 2 of the amended information. As we discuss next, our reversal of the
convictions is not predicated on a finding the trial evidence was insufficient to
sustain the jury’s verdict. Therefore, on remand, the prosecution will not be
barred from retrying Myles on these charges. (See Burks v. United States
(1978) 437 U.S. 1, 14 [double jeopardy clause does not preclude retrial “to
rectify trial error”]; People v. Hernandez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1, 10 [listing

                                       34
prejudicial instructional error as a trial error].) We express no opinion on
whether it should do so.
                                       IV.
  There Is Sufficient Evidence in the Record from Which a Rational Trier of
     Fact Could Find the Specific Intent Element of the Charged Offenses
      Myles contends the trial evidence was insufficient to support the
burglary or attempted burglary convictions. He argues the evidence he acted
with the requisite specific intent to commit theft was lacking, because he
presented evidence he suffered from delusions that caused him to believe he
owned Jake’s home, and because there was “[n]o [e]vidence” he intended to
consume or steal anything at the time of entry. We disagree.
      In determining whether substantial evidence supports a conviction, “we
do not reweigh the evidence, resolve conflicts in the evidence, draw inferences
contrary to the verdict, or reevaluate the credibility of witnesses.” (People v.
Little (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 766, 771 (Little), citing People v. Jones (1990) 51
Cal.3d 294, 314.) “We determine ‘whether, after viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have
found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ”
(People v. Edwards (2013) 57 Cal.4th 658, 715.) “ ‘A reversal for insufficient
evidence “is unwarranted unless it appears ‘that upon no hypothesis
whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support’ ” the jury’s
verdict.’ ” (People v. Manibusan (2013) 58 Cal.4th 40, 87 (Manibusan).)
      Having considered Myles’s arguments and having reviewed the trial
record, we conclude that although the trial evidence of specific intent was
weak, it was nevertheless sufficient to satisfy the deferential substantial
evidence standard of review. As we have noted, whether a burglary
defendant entered the premises with the intent to commit theft “[c]ommonly

                                       35
. . . must be inferred from the circumstances of the charged offense or
offenses.” (Holt, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 669.) “Substantial evidence includes
circumstantial evidence and the reasonable inferences flowing therefrom”
(People v. Ugalino (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1060, 1064), and “ ‘circumstantial
evidence is as sufficient as direct evidence to support a conviction’ ”
(Manibusan, supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 87).
      As discussed, the prosecution presented evidence Myles broke a kitchen
window to enter the home, unplugged the security system touch screen, and
drank a beverage and ate food inside the home. The jury reasonably could
infer from the manner of entry and unplugging of the security system touch
screen that Myles was aware he was committing an unauthorized entry; the
subsequent takings, however minor, supported an inference he intended to
commit theft at the time of entry. Although some of this evidence was also
consistent with an innocent state of mind, for purposes of substantial
evidence review, we are not permitted to draw inferences contrary to the
verdict. (Little, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at p. 771.) Rather, “ ‘ “ ‘[w]hen the
evidence justifies a reasonable inference of felonious intent, the verdict may
not be disturbed on appeal.’ ” ’ ” (Holt, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 670.)
      And while Myles offered his own testimony as well as the testimony of
Dr. Murphy in an effort to persuade the jury he did not act with the requisite
mental state, on substantial evidence review, we do not reweigh credibility or
resolve conflicts in the evidence. (Little, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at p. 771.)
Rather, “ ‘ “we look for substantial evidence.” ’ ” (Manibusan, supra, 58
Cal.4th at p. 87.) Having found such evidence in the trial record, we are
compelled to reject Myles’s sufficiency of the evidence challenge.

                                       36
                                DISPOSITION
      Myles’s convictions of the charges in counts 1 and 2 of the amended
information are reversed, and the matter is remanded for proceedings
consistent with this opinion.

                                                                       DO, J.

      WE CONCUR:

      McCONNELL, P. J.

      BUCHANAN, J.

                                     37