Does a defendant have to prove that he entered what in fact was an "inhabited dwelling house" to be convicted of first degree burglary?

Although sections 459 and 460, subdivision 1, require proof that the defendant entered what in fact was an "inhabited dwelling house" or the "inhabited portion of any other building," the language of these sections does not imply, and we do not infer therefrom, that to commit first degree burglary a defendant must have any particular knowledge about the building before he burglarizes it. (Cf. People v. Guthrie (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 832, 843-848, 193 Cal.Rptr. 54 [neither 459 nor 460 make knowledge that a "dwelling house" is "inhabited" an element of first degree burglary].) ⁴

Section 459 defines the crime, viz., the unlawful entry of any building with a felonious intent. On the other hand, section 460, subdivision 1, prescribes the punishment by providing a greater punishment when the defendant enters a residence. "As a general proposition, it has been said that a mistake of fact relating only to the gravity of an offense will not shield a deliberate offender from the full consequences of the wrong actually committed. [Citation.]" (People v. Lopez (1969) 271 Cal.App.2d 754, 760-761, 77 Cal.Rptr. 59; emphasis added.) Thus, where a defendant enters a residence, his ignorance that it was a residence provides no protection from the increased punishment that is imposed for his actual conduct.