California has territorial jurisdiction over an offense if the defendant, with the requisite intent, does a preparatory act in California that is more than a de minimus act, but not necessarily an attempt, toward the completion of the offense. A California Highway Patrol Officer in a marked vehicle followed appellant who was driving a stolen vehicle on a state highway. After some distance, appellant exited the freeway and proceeded to the entrance of Camp Pendleton, a United States Marine Corps Base, where he stopped at the main gate which was guarded by two marines. The officer used his loud speaker and called to the marines to stop appellant. Appellant sped off and entered the base. The officer followed him onto the base for a short distance but then turned the chase over to military police. During the subsequent pursuit, appellant committed the acts prohibited by Vehicle Code section 2800.2, subdivision (a). The appellate court acknowledged that for the purpose of the statute, the federal officers were not peace officers. Nevertheless, it agreed with the trial court that California had criminal jurisdiction since there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that appellant formed the intent to evade a California peace officer before entering the base because he exited the freeway. Further, the court noted that because there was a sufficient connection between appellant, his crime, and the circumstances of the crime, California has a legitimate interest in charging him with felony evasion even though the crime culminated on a federal enclave.