Legal Opinion

People v. Nible

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 18, 1988No. C001729PublishedCited by 46 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

DEEGAN, J. *

In this case of first impression, we hold the penetration of a window screen but not the window itself constitutes a burglarious entry. Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459; 460, subd. I). In addition, defendant admitted an allegation he had been convicted of a prior serious felony (assault with intent to commit rape, § 220), within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a). On appeal, he contends (1) he was guilty at most of attempted burglary because no entry occurred and (2) the court erroneously admitted evidence…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. People v. FlannelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
  2. People v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
  3. People v. ThompsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
  4. People v. ThorntonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  5. People v. AlcalaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by46 opinions

  1. People v. DemetruliasCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
  2. State v. PaceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1999
  3. People v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
  4. People v. ValenciaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  5. People v. BrownCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992

41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API