People v. Siekmann CA4/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 14, 2024D082269California2,199 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rubin, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Forrest Siekmann seeks reversal of his attempted burglary conviction. He claims insufficient evidence supported finding the requisite intent for that crime and the trial court erred in denying his requested voluntary intoxication jury instruction. Siekmann also seeks to correct the abstract of judgement to reflect the stay of his fines and fees. We agree the abstract of judgment needs correction, but otherwise affirm the judgment.

II. BACKGROUND

James Bennett lived in a small residential neighborhood in San Diego County. His house sat by itself atop a hill, adjacent to Interstate 8. The only access was a small access road which led to a long driveway up to the house. Given its remoteness, this was not a residence with casual foot traffic walking by it. In the early morning hours of December 17, 2021, Bennett was home watching television in his bedroom. No lights were on in the house and all the windows and doors were locked. Bennett heard pounding and the doorbell ringing at his front door, prompting him to check his surveillance cameras. Through the live feed that streamed to his phone, Bennett observed Siekmann manipulate the front door handle, put his ear to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.