P. v.

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that there is insufficient evidence the Rodarte home was “inhabited” for purposes of the burglary statute, which defines inhabited as “currently being used for dwelling purposes, whether occupied or not.” (§ 459.) Although no court has explicitly defined “dwelling purposes,” defendant contends the factors used include whether the dwelling is used for sleep, and the inhabited-uninhabited nature of the dwelling turns not on the immediate presence or absence of some person but rather on the character of use of the building. In addition, he points out that courts consider the intent of the owner/occupant, namely, whether that owner/occupant intends to occupy the dwelling in the future. Here, he argues, Rodarte did not use the home as a dwelling because she kept no personal items therein to indicate she considered her house private;

3 the residence was an empty shell being remodeled and thus more like a house under construction. We disagree. By statute, “[e]very burglary of an inhabited dwelling house, . . . or the inhabited portion of any other building, is burglary of the first degree.” (§ 460, subd. (a).) “All other kinds of burglary are of the second…