Is Section 537 of the California Criminal Code applicable to burglary?

Published cases involving section 537 are few, and defendant has not cited any in which a violation of section 537 resulted in a burglary prosecution. Instead, to demonstrate his contention that section 537 is a special statute that covers the same subject as section 459, defendant relies on the following cases in which a special theft statute has been compared with a general theft statute: People v. Ruster (1976) 16 Cal.3d 690, 694 (false insurance claim and forgery); People v. Fiene, supra, 226 Cal.App.2d at

Page 7

page 308 (petty theft and 537); People v. Silk (1955) 138 Cal.App.2d Supp. 899, 901-902 (petty theft and welfare fraud). Each of the cited cases compared theft with theft; none holds or suggests that theft and burglary cover the same subject. Here, on the other hand, section 537 prohibits a form of theft, whereas section 459 prohibits an entry with a specific state of mind. The cases do not illustrate defendant's point.