Accused of First Degree Burglary for Shoplifting

My question involves criminal law for the state of: California. I was accused of 1st degree Burglary for shoplifting. I was involved with another person and they were not accused of 1st degree burglary as I was. As far as I know, you are supposed to be accused of second degree burglary or petty theft (like who I was with) or whatever it may be aside from what I was accused. Am I correct?

It appears to qualify due to being an inhabited portion of the building.

Quote:

---

460. (a) Every burglary of an inhabited dwelling house, vessel, as
defined in the Harbors and Navigation Code, which is inhabited and
designed for habitation, floating home, as defined in subdivision (d)
of Section 18075.55 of the Health and Safety Code, or trailer coach,
as defined by the Vehicle Code, or the inhabited portion of any
other building, is burglary of the first degree.
(b) All other kinds of burglary are of the second degree.
(c) This section shall not be construed to supersede or affect
Section 464 of the Penal Code.

---

Whether you are charged with simple theft or burglary depends, primarily, on evidence of intent. The burglary statute reads (in relevant part):

459. Every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store,… (lengthy list of other types of enclosures omitted,) with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary.
(emphasis added)

Larceny is another word meaning theft. So, if there is evidence that, when you entered, you had the intent to commit a theft or any felony, a burglary charge is appropriate. It would appear that the arresting officer believed that there was evidence that YOU intended to commit a theft when you entered but you companion only decided to steal after entry. The difference between a 1st and 2nd degree burg is the type of building that was burglarized.

I think that was the question. Why was he charged with FIRST DEGREE rather than SECOND. Presumably he wasn't shoplifting in an inhabited home (dwelling house or houseboat) as PC 460 requires (and he wasn't using a torch in the process).

I wonder if he had tools on him? Scissors, boxcutter to remove tags or packaging? Something to remove a security device?

Quote:

---

Quoting PandorasBox

---

I wonder if he had tools on him? Scissors, boxcutter to remove tags or packaging? Something to remove a security device?

---

That still doesn't elevate it to FIRST DEGREE burglary. As stated, you have to enter an occupied home for it to be that (there's also a felony burglary if you use a cutting torch, etc... but even that isn't technically FIRST DEGREE burglary, just a felony enhancement). Other burglary tools are not a factor.

Quote:

---

the inhabited portion of any other building, is burglary of the first degree.

---

This is what I was focusing on Ron.

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

That still doesn't elevate it to FIRST DEGREE burglary. As stated, you have to enter an occupied home for it to be that (there's also a felony burglary if you use a cutting torch, etc... but even that isn't technically FIRST DEGREE burglary, just a felony enhancement). Other burglary tools are not a factor.

---

It was likely a clerical error. Entering a commercial property/business with the intent to commit shoplifting is a second degree burglary (a felony). And since one cannot shoplift from a private residence (unless, I suppose, it's open as a business as well ... that'd be convoluted and might have zoning issues) I suspect it's a clerical error and should be a second degree burglary.

Your attorney can clarify the issue at arraignment.