PER CURIAM

Pantoja appealed from a judgment convicting him of possession of burglar's tools on his guilty plea. Facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument, even when viewed under a liberal standard, was found jurisdictionally defective as it failed to allege facts of an evidentiary nature showing reasonable cause to believe Pantoja was guilty of the crime charged. The factual portion of the complaint alleging Pantoja was observed taking pipes from inside a building and handing them to his co-defendant, and police recovered a pipe cutter, and flashlight from Pantoja. The panel noted even when taken together with all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the facts, same did not give rise to the inference Pantoja possessed the subject tools with intent to commit a burglary or similar offense. Thus, as no facts were alleged from which it could be inferred Pantoja was committing, or intended to commit, a burglary, that he did not own or have permission to take pipes from the building or lacked permission to enter the building, the allegations were not of such weight to convince a person it was reasonably likely Pantoja possessed the tools with unlawful intent proscribed by law. Judgment was reversed.