People v. Coutu, 171 Cal. App. 3d 192 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Coutu, 171 Cal. App. 3d 192 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
19 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Fox, 58 Cal. App. 4th 1041 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 193 Defining dwelling for burglary purposes under penal code4 citing casesdefendant’s entry into a storeroom that was connected to a house by a roofed breezeway constituted first degree burglary2 citing courts put it this way
  • People v. Fox, 58 Cal. App. 4th 1041 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997).published
    The court stated, “[G]iven the fact that the garage was under the same roof, functionally interconnected with, and immediately contiguous to other portions of the house, simple logic would suffer were we to leap over this interrelationship…
  • People v. Hines, 210 Cal. App. 3d 945 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989).published
    Although a burglary of a storeroom connected to an inhabited dwelling by a roofed breezeway constitutes first degree burglary under sections 459 and 460, subdivision 1 (People v. Coutu (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 192, 193 [ 217 Cal.Rptr. 191 ]),…
  • P. v. Torrez, No. B237122 (Cal. Ct. App. May 2, 2013).unpublished
    (burglary of a storeroom connected to an inhabited dwelling by a breezeway constituted first degree burglary)
  • People v. Woods, 65 Cal. App. 4th 345 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998).published 2 cites
    (defendant’s entry into a storeroom that was connected to a house by a roofed breezeway constituted first degree burglary)
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ROBERT LOUIS COUTU, Defendant and Appellant
A028145.
California Court of Appeal, 1st District.
Aug 15, 1985.
Published opinion
171 Cal. App. 3d 192
1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 2400
Counsel, Charles M. Robinson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant., John K. Van de Kamp, Attorney General, and Robert R. Granucci, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
King.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

Opinion

KING, J.

In this case we hold that burglary of a storeroom connected to an inhabited dwelling by a breezeway constitutes first degree burglary. Robert Louis Coutu appeals from a judgment of conviction for first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. 1). We affirm the judgment.

Coiitu burglarized a storeroom at a Belmont residence on March 18, 1984. The storeroom was connected to the main house by a breezeway (commonly a roofed open passage connecting two buildings or halves of a building). The main house, breezeway, and storeroom shared a common roof. The breezeway had a door on one side and was open on the other side. The owner of the house kept a washing machine in the breezeway and kept food products and garden equipment in the storeroom.

Coutu’s sole contention on appeal is that the storeroom was a detached structure which was not a part of the dwelling, so that he was guilty only of second degree burglary.

This contention lacks merit. In an analogous situation the court in People v. Moreno (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 109, 112 [204 Cal.Rptr. 17], held that an attached garage without a door connecting the garáge to the interior of the house was a part of the dwelling because the garage was “under the same roof, functionally interconnected with, and immediately contiguous to other portions of the house . . . .” Similarly, in People v. Cook (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 785, 795 [185 Cal.Rptr. 576], the court held that an attached garage which did have a connecting door to the residence was “an integral part of” the dwelling. (Compare People v. Picaroni (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 612, 618 [281 P.2d 45] [burglary of detached garage was second degree burglary].) Here, the connecting breezeway structure rendered the storeroom “functionally interconnected with” and “an integral part of” the main house.

[*194] Coutu argues that Cook is distinguishable because of the presence of the connecting door in that case, and that Moreno is distinguishable because of the lack of a common wall in the present cáse. In light of the interconnecting function of the breezeway structure, these distinctions are meaningless.

The judgment is affirmed.

Low, P. J., and Haning, J., concurred.