Facts
- James Matthew Gauze shared an apartment with Richard Miller and a third roommate, giving Gauze an ongoing, unconditional right to enter the apartment at all times.
- Gauze and Miller had a serious argument while visiting a friend; Gauze told Miller to get his gun because Gauze would get his.
- Miller returned to the shared apartment.
- Gauze borrowed a shotgun from a neighbor, returned to the apartment, entered, went to the living room, pointed the shotgun at Miller, and fired, hitting Miller in the side and arm.
- Gauze was convicted of (1) assault with a deadly weapon and (2) burglary, with burglary based solely on his entry into the apartment with intent to commit the assault.
Issues
- Whether a defendant can be convicted of burglary under California Penal Code § 459 for entering premises the defendant has an unconditional right to enter, when the entry is made with intent to commit a felony.
Decision
- The California Supreme Court reversed the burglary conviction and left the assault conviction intact.
- The court held that a person cannot burglarize premises the person has an unconditional right to enter, even if the entry is accompanied by felonious intent.
- The court construed § 459 to require an entry that invades someone else’s possessory interest in habitation (an unauthorized entry in the burglary sense), which was absent because Gauze’s right to enter was unconditional.
Legal Principles
- Burglary under California Penal Code § 459 requires an entry that is unauthorized in the sense that it invades another’s possessory or occupancy interest in the premises.
- A person with an unconditional right to enter a residence (including a shared residence) cannot be convicted of burglarizing that residence based solely on entering with intent to commit a felony.
- A burglary conviction may still be available where the defendant’s right to enter is conditional or limited (e.g., invitees or employees) and the entry exceeds the scope of the permitted access, making the entry effectively unauthorized.
Conclusion
Because Gauze had an unconditional right to enter the apartment he shared with the victim, his entry did not constitute the type of intrusion against habitation targeted by burglary law; therefore, the burglary conviction was reversed while the assault conviction remained.