People v. Superior Court (Granillo)

In People v. Superior Court (Granillo) (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1478, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's section 995 dismissal of seven counts of burglary premised on the defendant's entry into an undercover police officer's apartment with the intent to sell stolen property. (Granillo, supra, 205 Cal.App.3d at p. 1480.) In dismissing the burglary charges, the trial court found the defendant had obtained informed and knowing consent from the undercover police officer to enter the apartment with the intent to sell stolen property. (Id. at p. 1486.) The trial court's finding was based on the following facts: As part of a sting operation, the Visalia Police Department assigned an undercover officer to live in an apartment from within which he was supposed to purchase stolen property. (Granillo, supra, 205 Cal.App.3d at p. 1480.) The undercover officer and other members of the police department let it be known throughout the community that the officer was living in the apartment, and that he was interested in buying stolen property. (Ibid.) The officer also offered kickbacks to people who referred others to sell stolen property to him. (Id. at p. 1481.) When the defendant learned that the undercover officer wanted to purchase stolen property, he called the officer and offered to sell numerous stolen items. (Ibid.) The officer told the defendant that he was interested in purchasing the items and asked the defendant to come to his apartment. (Ibid.) At the apartment, the defendant offered to sell the stolen items to the officer. (Ibid.) The defendant and the officer met at the apartment for the same purpose on six subsequent occasions. (Ibid.) The court in Granillo held that the trial court properly dismissed the defendant's burglary charges because the undercover officer knew of the defendant's felonious intent and invited the defendant to enter his apartment for purposes related to that intent, and, in turn, the defendant knew the officer was aware of his felonious purpose and was interested in buying stolen property from the defendant. (Granillo, supra, 205 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1485-1486.) The court also observed that the defendant's entries into the officer's apartment could not be classified as an intrusion upon the officer's possessory interest or as a fundamentally deceitful act because the officer had intended to set the burglaries in motion. (Id. at p. 1486.)