Burglary
BURGLARY
BURGLARY OF A DWELLING
BURGLARY OF A CONVEYANCE (CAR, BOAT, ETC)
BURGLARY OF A STRUCTURE
Burglary comes in many flavors, but there are a few basics common to all. All burglary charges require the (1) entry of a dwelling, structure, or conveyance (car, boat), (2) with knowledge that such entry is without permission, and (3) with the intent to commit an offense therein. Or, where there is a "legal" entry, but the person remains in the dwelling, structure or conveyance (1) surreptitiously, with the intent to commit an offense therein or if (2) permission to remain has been withdrawn, one is also guilty of a burglary. So now let's delve into the details....
Burglary requires not just "entry", but also an "intent to commit an offense". 90% of the time, the offense intended is theft. To give you a good feel of how this "entry with intent to commit an offense" works, let's examine the case of Gaskin v. State, 869 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2004). Gaskin was being transported to court from the jail, and escaped the transport bus. He then fled into a business and locked himself in. Soon thereafter, his shawshank moment came to an end, and he was recaptured. Gaskin was charged with burglary for entering the business with the intent to commit escape. The court overturned his burglary conviction because the offense of "escape" had already occurred before he entered the building. Thus, there was no intent to commit "another" crime, thus no burglary. Got that?
There's also plenty of issues surrounding the notion of "entry". Take the case of R.G. v. State , 865 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). R.G. was found guilty of burglary to a structure, because it was proven that he entered a fenced area and stole several golf carts. The court overturned the burglary conviction because there was no evidence that R.G. entered a building or the curtilage of a building, there was only evidence that he entered a "fenced area". Last time I checked, a fenced area is not a structure with a roof, thus no burglary to a "structure".
At times, the purpose for which a person enters a building comes into play in determining whether or not a burglary has occurred. Take the case of Gruver v. State, 816 So. 2d. 835 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), where Gruver was given permission to enter the victim's house to use their restroom. In addition to using the bathroom, Gruver also went upstairs to a bedroom, taking some jewelry. Because Gruver had only limited consent to enter the first floor of the house to use the restroom, his entry into a second floor bedroom supported a burglary of a dwelling charge.
Burglary to a conveyance has it's own set of problems. Florida law defines a conveyance as "any motor vehicle, ship, vessel, railroad car, trailer, aircraft, or sleeping car" noting that "to enter a conveyance includes taking apart any portion of the conveyance". Florida Statutes 810.011(3). The most common burglary to a conveyance involves the breaking into a car to steal either a car radio, purse, or navigation unit. But, what about theft of hubcaps? Does stealing hubcaps constitute a burglary? The short answer is no, that the removing of a portion of a conveyance only constitutes burglary if the removed portion facilitates the commission of an offense within the conveyance. Removing tires, rims, and hubcaps does not constitute a portion of a car that could facilitate the entry of the car. The gist of a burglary to a conveyance is the intent to commit a crime (usually theft) "within" the car. I should also note, with rising gas prices, that the act of siphoning gasoline from a car does not constitute burglary, even though it could be argued that a tube "entered" the vehicle. However, attempts to remove parts from an engine compartment can support a burglary charge. Also, simply reaching into the bed of a pickup truck can, under the right circumstances, constitute burglary (even though this area is not enclosed, as required by the burglary statute, hum...).
As you can see, the crime of burglary can be more complicated than expected. Much of the analysis requires an examination of both the act constituting "entry", and an analysis of the "intent to commit an offense" therein. When confronted with such accusations, it's best to contact a good local criminal defense attorney, I happen to know one right here in Central Florida. Give me a call and we'll discuss your options. Thanks.
BURGLARY OF A DWELLING
BURGLARY OF A CONVEYANCE (CAR, BOAT, ETC)
BURGLARY OF A STRUCTURE
Burglary comes in many flavors, but there are a few basics common to all. All burglary charges require the (1) entry of a dwelling, structure, or conveyance (car, boat), (2) with knowledge that such entry is without permission, and (3) with the intent to commit an offense therein. Or, where there is a "legal" entry, but the person remains in the dwelling, structure or conveyance (1) surreptitiously, with the intent to commit an offense therein or if (2) permission to remain has been withdrawn, one is also guilty of a burglary. So now let's delve into the details....
Burglary requires not just "entry", but also an "intent to commit an offense". 90% of the time, the offense intended is theft. To give you a good feel of how this "entry with intent to commit an offense" works, let's examine the case of Gaskin v. State, 869 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2004). Gaskin was being transported to court from the jail, and escaped the transport bus. He then fled into a business and locked himself in. Soon thereafter, his shawshank moment came to an end, and he was recaptured. Gaskin was charged with burglary for entering the business with the intent to commit escape. The court overturned his burglary conviction because the offense of "escape" had already occurred before he entered the building. Thus, there was no intent to commit "another" crime, thus no burglary. Got that?
There's also plenty of issues surrounding the notion of "entry". Take the case of R.G. v. State , 865 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). R.G. was found guilty of burglary to a structure, because it was proven that he entered a fenced area and stole several golf carts. The court overturned the burglary conviction because there was no evidence that R.G. entered a building or the curtilage of a building, there was only evidence that he entered a "fenced area". Last time I checked, a fenced area is not a structure with a roof, thus no burglary to a "structure".
At times, the purpose for which a person enters a building comes into play in determining whether or not a burglary has occurred. Take the case of Gruver v. State, 816 So. 2d. 835 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), where Gruver was given permission to enter the victim's house to use their restroom. In addition to using the bathroom, Gruver also went upstairs to a bedroom, taking some jewelry. Because Gruver had only limited consent to enter the first floor of the house to use the restroom, his entry into a second floor bedroom supported a burglary of a dwelling charge.
Burglary to a conveyance has it's own set of problems. Florida law defines a conveyance as "any motor vehicle, ship, vessel, railroad car, trailer, aircraft, or sleeping car" noting that "to enter a conveyance includes taking apart any portion of the conveyance". Florida Statutes 810.011(3). The most common burglary to a conveyance involves the breaking into a car to steal either a car radio, purse, or navigation unit. But, what about theft of hubcaps? Does stealing hubcaps constitute a burglary? The short answer is no, that the removing of a portion of a conveyance only constitutes burglary if the removed portion facilitates the commission of an offense within the conveyance. Removing tires, rims, and hubcaps does not constitute a portion of a car that could facilitate the entry of the car. The gist of a burglary to a conveyance is the intent to commit a crime (usually theft) "within" the car. I should also note, with rising gas prices, that the act of siphoning gasoline from a car does not constitute burglary, even though it could be argued that a tube "entered" the vehicle. However, attempts to remove parts from an engine compartment can support a burglary charge. Also, simply reaching into the bed of a pickup truck can, under the right circumstances, constitute burglary (even though this area is not enclosed, as required by the burglary statute, hum...).
As you can see, the crime of burglary can be more complicated than expected. Much of the analysis requires an examination of both the act constituting "entry", and an analysis of the "intent to commit an offense" therein. When confronted with such accusations, it's best to contact a good local criminal defense attorney, I happen to know one right here in Central Florida. Give me a call and we'll discuss your options. Thanks.