6 Cal. App. 3d 61, 85 Cal. Rptr. 589 (1970)
Defendant was charged in an information with attempted burglary. Trial by jury was waived, and the matter was submitted on the testimony contained in the transcript of the preliminary hearing together with exhibits. Defendant was found guilty. Proceedings were suspended before pronouncement of sentence, and an order was made granting defendant probation. The appeal is from the order which is deemed a final judgment.1
In October 1967, while his wife was away on a trip, defendant, a mathematician, under an assumed name, rented an office on the second floor of a building in Hollywood which was over the mezzanine of a bank. Directly below the mezzanine was the vault of the bank. Defendant was aware of the layout of the building, specifically of the relation of the office he rented to the bank vault. Defendant paid rent for the period from October 23 to November 23. During this prerental period defendant brought into the office equipment, including drilling tools, two acetylene gas tanks, a blow torch, a blanket, and a linoleum rug.2
Defendant learned from a custodian that no one was in the building on Saturdays. On Saturday, October 14, defendant drilled two groups of holes into the floor of the office above the mezzanine room but stopped drilling before the holes went through the floor. He came back to the office several times thinking he might slowly drill down, covering the holes with the linoleum rug. At some point in time he installed a hasp lock on a closet, and planned to, or did, place his tools in it, though he left the closet keys on the premises.3
Around the end of November, apparently after November 23, the landlord notified the police and turned the tools and equipment over to them. Defendant did not pay any more rent. It is not clear when he last entered the office, but it could have been after November 23, and even after the landlord had removed the equipment. On February 22, 1968, the police arrested defendant. After receiving advice as to his constitutional rights, defendant voluntarily made an oral statement which he reduced to writing, describing the drilling on October 14, his changing motives after beginning the plan, and how the plan seemed absurd after his wife returned.4
Whether there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction for attempted burglary?5
To prove that defendant committed an attempt to burglarize under Penal Code section 664, the prosecution was required to establish that he had the specific intent to commit a burglary of the bank. It was also required to establish that his acts toward that goal went beyond mere preparation.6
Yes. The required specific intent was clearly established.7 Defendant admitted in his written confession that he rented the office fully intending to burglarize the bank, that he brought in tools and equipment to accomplish this purpose, and that he began drilling into the floor with the intent of making an entry into the bank.8 Defendant's drilling activity was an unequivocal and direct step toward the completion of the burglary.9
It was the beginning of the breaking element and one of a series of acts which logic and ordinary experience indicate would result in the proscribed act of burglary.10 The inference that defendant became aware the landlord had resumed control and turned over the equipment was the equivalent of interception.11 Once the attempt is found there can be no exculpatory abandonment.12
The order is affirmed because there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for attempted burglary.13