People v. Meredith
2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 941, 95 Cal. Rptr. 3d 297, 174 Cal.App.4th 1257 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A residence is considered an 'inhabited dwelling' for the purpose of a first-degree burglary conviction as long as its occupant has not abandoned the intent to return, even if the occupant is temporarily absent for a prolonged period and their physical return is unlikely or impossible.
Facts:
- In 2006, 93-year-old Melvin Olsen, who had lived alone in his Sacramento house for 70 years, was hospitalized and later moved to a skilled nursing facility.
- Before leaving, Olsen asked his friend, Wayne W., to maintain the house, pay its bills, and explicitly stated his belongings should be left as they were because he was planning on coming back.
- On December 27, 2006, Wayne W. confronted two men, one later identified as Dwayne Meredith, as they were leaving Olsen's garage.
- The men fled when confronted by Wayne W.
- When Meredith was later detained, police found him in possession of a traveler's check bearing Olsen's signature and a pen from Olsen's business, both items that were kept inside the house.
- On December 31, 2006, four days after the burglary, Olsen died in the medical facility without ever returning home.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Dwayne Meredith with first-degree burglary, receiving stolen property, and possession of methamphetamine.
- Following a trial in the superior court (trial court), a jury found Meredith guilty on all counts.
- In a subsequent proceeding, Meredith admitted to having a prior strike and two prior prison terms.
- The trial court sentenced Meredith to an aggregate prison term of 15 years.
- Meredith, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal (the intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a house remain an 'inhabited dwelling' for the purposes of a first-degree burglary conviction when its sole resident has been in a medical facility for several months, is terminally ill and unlikely to return, but has expressed an intent to return and has made arrangements for the home's maintenance?
Opinions:
Majority - Hull, J.
Yes, a house remains an 'inhabited dwelling' under these circumstances. The court reasoned that the 'inhabited-uninhabited' distinction for burglary hinges on the resident's intent, not the duration of their absence or their physical ability to return. The purpose of the heightened protection for inhabited dwellings is to safeguard the personal security of individuals in their homes. Citing People v. Marquez, the court affirmed that a dwelling remains inhabited even if the resident is away for a long period and their return is doubtful, as long as they have not vacated or abandoned the residence. In this case, Olsen's explicit statement that he 'was planning on coming back' and his arrangements for the home's maintenance demonstrated his continued intent to use it as a dwelling. The fact that he was terminally ill and ultimately unable to return did not retroactively change the home's inhabited status at the time of Meredith's entry.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that the occupant's subjective intent to return is the paramount factor in determining if a dwelling is 'inhabited' for first-degree burglary charges in California. The ruling expands the protection of the law to vulnerable individuals, such as the elderly or terminally ill, who are forced into prolonged absences from their homes. By focusing on the occupant's intent over their physical capacity to return, the court makes it significantly more difficult for defendants to argue that a home is uninhabited simply because the resident is in a hospital or nursing facility. This precedent reinforces a broad, inclusive definition of 'inhabited dwelling' to effectuate the law's purpose of protecting residences from intrusion.
