Is there any case law in which a defendant is held to answer two counts of burglary in violation of section 496 of the Penal Code?

The facts of the instant case satisfy the second requirement that the offense arise out of the same transaction which serves as the basis of the commitment, since count II charged defendant with concealing and withholding, in violation of section 496 of the Penal Code, property stolen from the Pulatis; that property was the subject of the second burglary count on which defendant was held to answer. The only issue here, therefore, turns on whether 'the evidence at the [68 Cal.2d 444] preliminary hearing (showed) probable cause for holding the (defendant) to stand trial on the charge of (violating section 496 of the Penal Code).' (Parks v. Superior Court, supra, 38 Cal.2d at 614, 241 P.2d at 524).