Tuggle

People v. Tuggle

Good Law
138 Cal. Rptr. 3d 99·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 209·203 Cal. App. 4th 1071·2012 WL 593400
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 24, 2012No. B228064California3,983 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Klein, J.

*1073 Opinion

Allen Tuggle, Jr., appeals the judgment (order granting probation) entered following his conviction by jury of burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459.) 1 Tuggle contends the presence of his fingerprint on a moveable object in the burglarized residence is insufficient to support the conviction absent a showing the fingerprint could not have been placed on the object at some earlier time. He also contends the trial court abused its discretion in allowing a forensic identification deputy to testify regarding the durability of fingerprints and the order directing Tuggle to pay attorney fees must be vacated for failure to comply with section 987.8, subdivision (b).

We accept the People’s concession the case must be remanded to permit the trial court to comply with the reimbursement statute. On the remaining issues, we find no error. The burglarized residence, a model home in Lancaster, was cleaned before it opened in 2006 and thereafter was cleaned on a monthly basis until April of 2008. After the burglary in November of 2008, Tuggle’s fingerprints were found on a vase that was on the ground next to a fireplace. When Tuggle was arrested in February of 2009, he admitted he had not…

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.