People v. Chavez, 140 Cal. Rptr. 3d 860

Defendant Pablo Mendoza Chavez was convicted of burglary, receipt of stolen property, conspiracy to commit burglary, theft with a prior theft conviction, and possession of burglary tools in two related incidents.
Conspiracy to commit burglary was based on a coconspirator entering a fenced wrecking yard to steal gasoline from a junk car.
The jury was instructed that entry into the yard, not into a building, could satisfy burglary, and the court previously allowed this interpretation.
Supreme Court defines burglary of a building as a structure with walls and a roof; a fenced yard is not a building.
The Court reverses Chavez’s conspiracy conviction and reduces the sentence accordingly, and remands to decide whether to strike or impose Penal Code section 667.5(b) enhancements.
The court rejects Chavez’s ineffective-assistance claims and affirms other counts and sentences, with remand on enhancements to the trial court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a fenced yard qualifies as a building for burglary purposes	People contends the yard is a building under the statute	Chavez argues no evidence of entering a building; only the yard	Conspiracy conviction reversed; yard not a building
Whether the conspiracy conviction could stand with entry into the yard	People asserts overt step through yard entry supports conspiracy	Chavez maintains no agreement to enter a building	Reversed due to lack of building-entry element
Remedy for misapplied enhancements and procedural issues	People concedes error in staying enhancements should be corrected	N/A	Remand to strike or impose 667.5(b) enhancements; amended judgment on remand

People v. Jurado, 38 Cal.4th 72 (Cal. 2006) (defines overt-step element for conspiracy to commit burglary)
People v. Gibbons, 206 Cal. 112 (Cal. 1928) (building means four walls and a roof; fenced yard not a building)
People v. Brooks, 133 Cal.App.3d 200 (Cal. App. 1982) (integral part concept of building for burglary)