Facts
- Christopher Magness was charged with attempted first-degree residential burglary and second-degree automobile burglary after an incident at Timothy Loop’s home.
- Loop, inside his home, heard his garage door opening and saw Magness standing near the end of the driveway.
- Magness fled; Loop pursued and deputies later arrested Magness.
- A garage-door remote control was found near where Magness had been standing.
- Loop had left the remote locked inside his car parked in the driveway; the car showed signs of tampering, supporting an inference the remote was taken from the car.
- The prosecution contended Magness used the remote to open the motorized garage door while remaining outside the garage.
Issues
- Whether a defendant who stands outside a residence and uses a stolen remote to open a motorized garage door has “entered” the residence under Penal Code § 459, permitting a charge of completed residential burglary.
Decision
- The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s writ of prohibition.
- Using a remote control from outside to open a garage door does not constitute an “entry” into the residence for burglary.
- On these facts, the prosecution could proceed only on attempted residential burglary, not completed residential burglary.
Legal Principles
- Burglary under Penal Code § 459 requires an “entry” into a covered structure with intent to commit theft or a felony.
- “Entry” can be satisfied by the slightest intrusion by any part of the body or by an instrument.
- When an instrument is relied on to show entry, the instrument must physically intrude into the structure and be used to accomplish the intended theft or felony inside, not merely to facilitate access or gain entry.
- An electronic signal that actuates a door mechanism, without any physical penetration of the structure’s interior airspace by body or instrument, is insufficient to establish entry and supports, at most, attempted burglary.
Conclusion
Because Magness remained outside and neither his body nor any instrument physically intruded into the garage for the purpose of committing the intended interior offense, remotely opening the garage door was not an “entry” under Penal Code § 459, limiting the charge to attempted residential burglary.