People v. Hinkle CA1/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 21, 2016A146205California2,041 words

Opinion

Opinion

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL

BACKGROUND

On the morning of March 9, 2015, Hinkle entered an apartment on Golden Gate Avenue in San Francisco, took several items, then left after one of the apartment’s residents woke up. Police found Hinkle nearby shortly thereafter with several items that had been taken from the apartment. A jury convicted her of felony first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459—count 1)1 and misdemeanor receiving stolen property

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1 (§ 496, subd. (a)—count 2), and the trial court found true an allegation that another person was present in the residence during the burglary (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(21)). Hinkle filed a motion for new trial in which she argued that she could not be convicted both of first degree burglary and of receiving or buying stolen property because the two crimes involved the same property. At the hearing on the motion, the prosecutor acknowledged that the offenses merged for purposes of section 6542 but argued that such a merger meant that while Hinkle could not be punished for both offenses arising out the same course of conduct, she could be convicted of both of them. The trial court…

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.