## Facts

- Edmund Beauclerc Staples, using an assumed name, rented a second-floor office in Hollywood located above a bank mezzanine; the bank vault was directly below the mezzanine.
- Staples knew the building layout and the office’s relationship to the vault.
- Before and during the rental period, he brought into the office drilling tools, two acetylene gas tanks, a blow torch, a blanket, and a linoleum rug.
- Staples learned from a custodian that the building was unoccupied on Saturdays.
- On a Saturday, he drilled two groups of holes into the office floor above the mezzanine but stopped before drilling through the floor.
- He returned on later occasions intending to continue drilling gradually and to conceal the holes with the linoleum rug.
- The landlord later contacted police and turned over the tools and equipment; Staples did not pay further rent.
- After arrest and advisement of rights, Staples gave a voluntary statement admitting he drilled the holes as the beginning of a plan to enter the bank vault, and he claimed he later had second thoughts.

## Issues

1. Whether Staples’s conduct (renting space above the vault, bringing specialized equipment, and partially drilling into the floor) constituted an attempted burglary rather than mere preparation.
2. Whether Staples’s claimed abandonment of the plan after beginning execution relieved him of attempt liability.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment (appeal taken from the order granting probation deemed a final judgment).
- Substantial evidence supported the finding that Staples intended to burglarize the bank and committed overt acts constituting a direct movement toward that crime.
- Staples’s actions exceeded preparation; drilling into the floor toward the bank area was a sufficient step to constitute attempt even though the floor was not penetrated.
- Abandonment did not exculpate Staples once his conduct had reached the level of a criminal attempt, regardless of whether the abandonment was voluntary or influenced by external circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal attempt under California law requires specific intent to commit the target offense plus a direct movement toward its commission; the prosecution need not prove the “last proximate act.”
- Conduct may qualify as a direct movement when the defendant’s objective acts, viewed in context, show execution has begun (e.g., targeted entry preparations coupled with physical alteration of the premises consistent with the planned burglary).
- Once an attempt is established, subsequent abandonment or desistance is not a defense to liability for attempt.

## Conclusion

The court held that Staples’s planning, possession of specialized equipment, and drilling into the floor above the bank area constituted a direct step sufficient for attempted burglary, and it ruled that later abandonment does not negate attempt liability once the attempt threshold is crossed.


People v. Staples, 6 Cal. App. 3d 61 (Ct. App. 1970)