Monday, March 27, 2023

People v. Myles (Cal. Ct. App. - March 23, 2023)

A mother who lived in a house in Oceanside (down here in San Diego) died, and her son in Los Angeles (Jake) occasionally visited it while the thing was in probate; otherwise, it was vacant. Meanwhile, down in San Diego, there's this homeless guy (Andre Myles) who's got serious mental illness issue that, not at all surprisingly, aren't made any better by the guy smoking meth. 

One day, the homeless guy (Myles) is in the area and, whether due to his mental illness -- he thinks that Jake's house was "given to him by the Archangel Michael" because Myles is "Jesus Christ reincarnated -- or simply because he's cold and hungry, Myles breaks into the vacant house. While he's there, Myles drinks a juice box and eats some ice cream that's in the fridge. Meanwhile, Jake (up in LA) is getting these text messages from the security system installed in the house. So early the next morning, Jake drives down to Oceanside and puts his key in the front door to check out what's up. At which point the doorknob turns and standing there inside the house is Myles.

"Surprised, Jake asks Myles, “[W]ho are you? What are you doing here?” Myles told Jake “he lived there and that it was his house.” Myles “seemed serious [to Jake], . . . he said that he lived there, that was his house.” Jake stepped back from the doorway and called 911. When Jake told Myles, “ ‘this is my house homeboy, you’re going to have to leave,’ ” Myles asked him, “this is your house?” Myles also asked, “Are you Jake?” “There was some back and forth regarding whose house it actually belonged to.” Myles then said he would leave if Jake showed him “some form of identification” so “he could confirm that it is, in fact, Jake.” Jake, who was now inside the house, showed Myles his identification. Upon seeing Jake’s identification, Myles went to gather “his stuff" . . . . [and shortly thereafter] two police officers arrived at the home and arrested Myles."

Okay. This stuff happens. Myles broke in and drank a juice box and ate some ice cream. Let's assume that's burglary. Oh, and a year and a half later, Myles tries to get back in to "his" house and hits a window of the house with a rock -- which doesn't break the window -- and all of this is caught on a Ring system, so Myles is charged with attempted burglary for that as well.

What sentence, you think? For a crazy homeless guy breaking into a vacant house that he thinks is "his" and stealing a juice box and some ice cream?

15 years. That's 14 years for the first burglary ("consisting of the upper term of six years . . . doubled to 12 years due to the strike prior, plus two years for the out-on-bail enhancement") plus another 16 months for the second attempt.

My overall reaction: Doesn't that seem, eh, socially excessive to you? I mean, sure, we want to stop crazy homeless people from going into houses that aren't *actually* theirs and drinking juice boxes and the like. But spending all the money to house them in a prison for 15 years? Is that really the most efficient way to solve this problem? That's really the best we can do? Really?

The Court of Appeal reverses this particular conviction on some hypertechnical instructional grounds. But I suspect that Mr. Myles will just be convicted again on remand. Or, failing that, that he'll just be busted yet again for doing it another time, or for entering someone else's house instead.

Fifteen years in prison seems a really long time. Which, I know, I've said before. But really? That's where we're at these days? That's our solution to the problem?