How has the burglary statute been interpreted in this case?

The burglary statute does appear plain and unambiguous on its face. Simply stated: Every person who enters any building with intent to commit any felony is guilty of burglary. (Pen.Code, 459.) Therefore, it seems at first glance section 459 could be easily applied to the facts in this case. A reasonable trier of fact could believe Granillo entered the apartment with intent to sell stolen property. (Rideout v. Superior Court (1967) 67 Cal.2d 471, 476, 62 Cal.Rptr. 581, 432 P.2d 197.) Accordingly, if we were to employ the [205 Cal.App.3d 1482] People's logic, we would conclude respondent court should have denied the section 995 motion. This, however, we cannot do.