Is there sufficient evidence to support a jury's conclusion that defendant was responsible for the theft of a screen from a bedroom window?

investigating officer testified the screen was discovered lying on the ground outside the window. As the window and the area outside the window were part of an enclosed private area, there was sufficient evidence to establish that defendant's palmprint was found at the point of entry, which was in a location normally inaccessible to others. Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's conclusion that defendant was the perpetrator of the burglary. (People v. Atwood, supra, 223 Cal.App.2d at p. 326.)