Is there insufficient evidence to support a conviction for vandalizing vehicles in a parking garage?

^2. Street also passingly contends there was insufficient evidence that his entry was trespassory, claiming that to constitute burglary, "the entry must invade a possessory right in the building by one who has no right to be in the building." He argues the evidence allows a reasonable inference he vandalized the vehicles while he had a right to be on the property. However, "'it is settled that the entry need not constitute a trespass' to support a burglary conviction." (People v. Pendleton (1979) 25 Cal.3d 371, 382.) One who enters a structure with intent to commit a felony is "guilty of burglary except when he or she (1) has an unconditional possessory right to enter as the occupant of that structure or (2) is invited in by the occupant who knows of and endorses the entrant's felonious intent." (People v. Salemme (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 775, 778.) No evidence was presented from which to infer Street had either an unconditional right to enter or had been invited by an occupant who knew of his intent to vandalize vehicles in the parking garage.