PC 464: Burglary using Explosives

Legal Definition:  “Any person who, with intent to commit a crime, enters, either by day or by night, any building, whether inhabited or not, and opens or attempts to open any vault, safe, or other secure places by use of acetylene torch or electric arc, burning bar, thermal lance, oxygen lance, or any other similar device capable of burning through steel, concrete, or any other solid substance, or by use of nitroglycerine, dynamite, gunpowder, or any other explosive, is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be punished by imprisonment…”

For a person to be convicted of a violation of PC 464, the prosecution must show that:

1. You entered a building, whether inhabited with people or not;
2. You entered the building either by day or by night;
3. You entered the building with the intent to commit a crime.
4. You had opened or attempted to open a vault, safe, or other secure places by use of acetylene torch or electric arc, burning bar, thermal lance, oxygen lance, or other similar devices capable of burning through steel, concrete, or other solid substance.

OR

5. You had opened or attempted to open a vault, safe, or other secure places by use of nitroglycerine, dynamite, gunpowder, or other explosive.

What does this mean?

Even in the event of unsuccessful attempts to breach a safe or vault through explosive means, potential legal repercussions remain under this statute. The outcome, whether success or failure, does not absolve one of the potential liability. Consider the following scenarios:

Firstly, imagine an employee dissatisfied with their salary who determines to pilfer funds from their employer’s safe once the office is vacant. Due to the advanced security measures in place, gaining access with a mere crowbar is impossible. Methodically conducting research, this individual devises an incendiary device capable of burning through the safe’s formidable exterior. Seizing the opportunity, they execute their plan, leaving behind a scorching evidence of their malicious intent. In this instance, the perpetrator would be held accountable for the offense outlined in PC 464, encompassing burglary compounded by the use of an explosive.

Similarly, envision a person attempting to breach a store’s safe well after business hours, employing an acetylene torch. Amidst the darkness and solitude, they embark upon their criminal endeavor to create an aperture in the safe’s structure, targeting the stored currency. However, unbeknownst to the intruder, their actions trigger a silent alarm, summoning a vigilant law enforcement officer. The situation rapidly unfolds with the armed officer confronting the suspect, demanding immediate cessation of their activities. In this scenario, although the culprit failed to abscond with any money and did not even vacate the premises, they could still face conviction under the aforementioned charge.

Rest assured, the expertise and authority of this information serves to provide a comprehensive understanding of the potential legal consequences associated with attempted burglaries involving the use of explosives.

Penalties

A violation under PC 464 Burglary using Explosives is a felony only charge. This means you cannot have this charge reduced to a misdemeanor during or after your case. This would also mean, a conviction for a violation under PC 464, would be a lifetime ban for you to ever own or possess a firearm. A conviction under this section can land you in State Prison for upwards to 3, 5, or 7 years. You would be required to serve at least 50% of that time in custody. You would also be subject to stiff fines and fees, upon your release from custody. This is not a mandatory Prison Sentence, and having an experienced Criminal Defense Attorney can possibly seek Probation, thus avoiding a lengthy Prison Sentence. Whether you are subject to State Prison or Probation, depends on the facts of your case and your criminal history.

This is not a strike offense under the California Three Strikes law, and it is not a Sex Offense under PC 290. You could also face a suspension or loss of your Professional License if convicted, and if you are not a legal resident, you could face issues in Immigration Court because this is a crime of moral turpitude.

Common Defenses

1. Statute of Limitations
2. Violation of Rights
3. Insufficient Evidence
4. Coerced Confessions
5. Mistake of Fact

If you are able to show you did not have an intent to commit a crime upon breaking into the store in the above example, then you could avoid being convicted for this charge. Whether you are intending to commit a crime upon breaking into the place, depends on the specific circumstantial evidence available. For example, if you have gloves, a mask, a big bag, and a torch, you likely will have a hard time explaining to police that you were not in that store for any other reason than to commit a crime. However, if you are simply breaking into a store to sleep, then they’re likely is not a chance for the DA to prove that you broke in with the intent to commit a crime. Failing to show your intent after breaking into a place, would mean there is insufficient evidence to prove you guilty of the crime. In that case, it would act as a complete defense, and your case would be dismissed at a trial.

You would also not be guilty of the crime if you did not have the intent or mental state required to commit the crime because you reasonably did not know a fact or reasonably and mistakenly believed a fact. If your conduct would have been lawful under the facts as you reasonably believed them to be, you did not commit. If you act under an honest and reasonable mistake of fact, you are typically not guilty of the crime. Therefore, if you enter a store, thinking it is your parent’s store and it’s late at night, then although you commit the break-in, if you did so with a reasonable mistake of fact, you would not be guilty of this crime.

Call Today

Facing a charge under PC 464, which pertains to burglary with explosives, is a matter of grave concern, carrying significant legal implications. A conviction can lead to up to 7 years in state prison, mandatory deportation for non-residents, and the irreversible loss of Second Amendment rights. In such scenarios, the value of a solid defense strategy cannot be overstated.

At Inland Empire Defense, our Ontario PC 464 attorney brings an exceptional depth of experience and expertise to the table. With a strong track record of successfully defending individuals against charges of burglary with explosives under PC 464, we are committed to providing the highest level of legal representation.

Navigating these complex charges requires a seasoned professional who understands the intricacies of the law and is adept at crafting effective defense strategies. If you or someone you know is facing such serious charges, immediate legal consultation is crucial.

Please don’t hesitate to reach out for immediate assistance. Contact your local Rancho Cucamonga Criminal Defense Attorney at Inland Empire Defense by calling 909-939-7126. Situated in Ontario, we are ready and equipped to ensure that you receive the trusted, reliable, and expert representation that you deserve in these challenging times.