Burglary of a Dwelling Conviction

Burglary of a Dwelling ConvictionMEMORANDUMTO Senior PartnerFROM companionRE George Bailey Burglary of a c atomic number 18 strong beliefDATE July 11, 2016FEC1ISSUES PRESENTEDUnder Florida nerve lawFEC2, enter is an compvirtuosont place of burglary. Entering qualifies as both FEC3dead eubstance give and is non secluded to the whole embody. suspect put his leg through an airfoil store window to turn on a burglaryFEC4. Did Defendant get wind the piece of ingress as it pertains to the burglary statute?Under Florida statute, dwelling is an factor of burglary. For whatsoever building to be confacered a dwelling, the situation in which it re spatial relations must father railway greenFEC5. Curtilage is nigh stratum of marches adjoin a berth. opus standing on the neighbors retention, Defendant burglarizedFEC6 a a bulge out(p) garage on a spot that was cover on triple sides, with the fourth side rotate. Did Defendant meet the element of dwelling as it pertains to the burglary statute?FEC7 shortened ANSWERSYes. Florida law defines immersion as intrusion of each body billet to commit the crime. An weapon system fits the definition of any body part because it is part of the body and can be apply to commit the crime. Therefore, an arm qualifies as an entering body part under Florida law.No. Florida law states that a property in which a dwelling resides must FEC8 surrender cubic super acid, and grounds was FEC9defined as any variance of enclosure border a property. A destitute garage would non be a dwelling, if its property is non surround by some form of an enclosure. Therefore, a liberal garage on a property without curtilage would non qualify as a dwelling under Florida lawFEC10.STATEMENT OF FACTSMr. George Bailey has been convicted FEC11of burglary of a dwelling and is envisionking assist with his conviction. Mr. Bailey is an laid-off thirty-four year old male, who has resided at 320 Sycamore Street, Bailey b each(prenominal)park Florida 33430 for nine years with his wife and four young children. He has been unemployed for approximately two yearsFEC12. Mr. Bailey seeks the help of counsel with his conviction of burglary of a dwelling. Specifically, the conviction of burglary as it pertains to Florida law.On May 27, 2016, Mr. Bailey was driving in the residential reach of Pottersville looking for thrown out furniture to refurbish and resell. He came crosswise a home with patio furniture sitting out on the curb for trash pickup,FEC13 and decided to load it onto his truck. Before getting bum into his truck, he glanced close to for anything else to pick up. He thus saw an electric car drum sander sitting on a workbench inside an give way garage window of the neighbors house, Mr. Ernie Bishop. Mr. Bailey advised, that he wanted the sander because most of his tools compulsory to be replaced and the small sander would deliver for more refinishing of furniture than sanding by hand. T he side of Mr. Bishops propertyFEC14where the garage is primed(p), is lined with a short duckd circumventFEC15, which he thought would conceal him from being seen when taking the sander. Still standing on the property of the neighbors home, he reached over the hedge wall and into the part reach window with his arm, took the sander, and went back to his truck. Minutes later, he was stopped by practice of law and arrested for burglary of a dwelling.Mr. Bailey was arrested on May 27, 2016FEC16at approximately 835 p.m. He was booked at approximately 900 p.m. on the same day, and was convicted of burglary of a dwelling with a $2,000.00 bond. He conviction is to be heard in await of a judge.FEC17DISCUSSIONNFEC18Mr. George Bailey will unlikely to be convicted FEC19of burglary of a dwelling, becauseFEC20although he meets the ingress and intent elementsFEC21, he doeFEC22s not meet the element of dwelling because Mr. Ernie Bishops property does not have curtilage.In Florida, burglary is eFEC23ntering a dwelling, a structure, or a conveyance with the intent to commit an offense thitherin, unless the premises are at the season open to the public or the defendant is authorize or invited to enter . . . . Fla. Stat. Ann. 810.02(1)(b)(1) (LexisNexis Effective July 1, 2016). To be convicted of burglary of a dwellingFEC24the prosecution would have to FEC25prove that Mr. Bailey meets the elements of entering, dwelling, and intent. The exceptions to the rule, are if the property was open to the public, if Mr. Bailey was a licensed professional execute work on the property, or if Mr. Bailey was a social guest invited onto the property.FEC26These exceptions were not factors in Mr. Baileys role. At the time of the burglary, Mr. Bishops property was not open to the public. It is a privately owned home located in a residential area of Pottersville. Additionally, Mr. Bailey did not personally know Mr. Bishop, nor was he hired by Mr. Bishop to perform any type of professio nal services.Mr. Bailey meets the intent element because he testified FEC27that his intention was to take the sander without being seen. Florida law states that several(prenominal)ize of the entering of such structure or conveyance at any time stealthily and without consent of the owner or occupant thereof is prima(predicate) facie test of entering with intent to commit an offense. Fla. Stat. Ann. 810FEC28.07(1) (LexisNexis 2016). In the Baker case, the philander used defendants stealthy entry FEC29as an evidentiary tool to fix the proof of intent to commit burglary. Baker v. State, 636 So. 2d 1342, 1344 (Fla. 1994). Therefore, by intending to steal the sander without any whiz seeing him, Mr. Bailey used the coverage from the hedges to sneak his arm into the garage, which supplys fit turn out to meet the intent element. Thus, the elements at issue here are entering and dwelling.Mr. Bailey meets the element of entering within the meaning of the burglary FEC30statute because he used his arm to take the sander from the window, and using any body part establishes entry.The entering element, is defined through case law. The court of justice states, FEC31the unqualified use of the rule book enter in a burglary statute does not confine its pertinence to intrusion of the whole body but includes insertion of any part of the body or of an instrument intentional to effect the contemplated crime. Polk v. State, 825 So. 2d 478, 479 (Fla. App. 2002).FEC32 see also Spearman v. State, 366 So. 2d 775FEC33(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978). Therefore, the issue at hand is whether Mr. Baileys arm provides suitable assure to establish the element of entering.FEC34Therefore, the entering element is satisfactory when any body part enters a dwellingFEC35. Polk, 825 So. 2d 478FEC36, 479. In the Polk case, the Defendant used his arm to unlatch a window in order to commit burglary. Id. The greet held that intrusion of any body part is sufficient enough to touch the entry of a dwelling within the meaning of the burglary statute. Id. at 480.Consequently, the element of entering is met when a person enters with any part of their FEC37body. Spearman, 366 So. 2d 775. In Spearman, the Defendant went to the front door and upon the door scuttle, soft on(p) the resident in the face. Id. The Defendant was ultimately charged with burglary and assault. Id. With respect to the burglary charge, the motor inn held thatFEC38although his whole body did not enter the home, he entered when his arm and hand reached into the doorway and struck the resident. Id. at 776. The entry of any body part provided sufficient evidence for a conviction of burglary. Id. FEC39In this FEC40case, and similar to Polk and Spearman, where a part of the accuseds body entered a garage or a home, here, Mr. Bailey used a part of his body, his arm, to take the sander from an open window. As the Court held that intrusion of any body part is sufficient to establish an entry, Mr. Bailey meets the element of entering becauseFEC41as he stood in the neighbors property he entered Mr. Bishops property when he put his arm through Mr. Bishops garage window. Therefore, the entry of his arm would provide sufficient evidence to meet the entering element. Polk, 825 So. 2d 478 Spearman, 366 So. 2d 775.Thus, when Mr. Baileys arm to reach into Mr. Bishops open garage window while standing on the neighbors property, he satisfied the entering element because a part of his body entered Mr. Bishops property. FEC42Mr. Bailey does not meet the dwelling element within the meaning of the burglary statute because he burglarized FEC43a unaffectionate garage on a property that does not have curtilage.Florida law defines a dwelling FEC44as a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether such building or conveyance is unpredictable or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night, together with the curtilage thereof. Fla. Stat. Ann. 810.011(2) (LexisNexis 2016FEC45).The issue in Mr. Baileys case is whetherFEC46 the detached garage is considered a dwelling. A dwelling is established, when the property in which the dwelling resides has curtilage. FEC47Curtilage is a dwelling element that must be met. FEC48Florida law states that some form of an enclosure . . . must be present surrounding a planetary house to be considered part of the curtilage. . . . State v. Hamilton, 660 So. 2d 1038, 1045 (Fla. 1995). Additionally with regards to available structures, case law states that not having a form of hindrance around extended residence of the curtilage, falls short of bringing unattached structures within the curtilage of the home. Martinez v. State, 700 So. 2d 142, 144 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997).Accordingly, when there is no form of enclosureFEC49, a property does not have curtilage. Hamilton, 660 So. 2d 1038, 1045. In Hamilton, the Defendant attempted to burglarize outboard mo tors from a boat located on an unfenced back rate. Id. at 1039.The backyard was not enclosed by a fence, shrubs, or any form of a barrier. Id. Although there were a few spaced out trees around the property, the Court held that the property did not have curtilage and thereforeFEC50 the evidence did not fend for a conviction of burglary of a dwelling. Id. at 1046.Moreover, curtilage does not exist when the enclosure of a property does not surround all sides. Martinez, 700 So. 2d 142, 144. In Martinez, Defendant burglarized a sander from a detached garage, which had a driveway connecting the garage to the street. FEC51Id. at 143. The detached garage was located between the main house and the neighbors house. IdFEC52. Additionally, there was a fence bordering whole two sides of the propertyFEC53. Id. The Court held that FEC54actual barriers are guideed around the residence and unattached structures, to make it part of a curtilage of a home. Id. at 144. Therefore, the detached garage was not a dwelling because it was located on a property that did not have curtilage. Id. As such, the Defendant could not be convicted of burglary of a dwelling. Id.Specifically, a property has curtilage when an enclosure surrounds a property regardless FEC55of an opening for a driveway. Dubose v. State, 75 So. 3d 383, 385 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011). In Dubose, Defendants entered a property surround by a chain-linked fenced to commit burglary and fired bullets into the house. Id. at384, 385. The property was fenced in on all sides, with an opening for the driveway in the front. Id. at385. The Court held that an enclosure did not have to be completely closed to allow an opening for the driveway, and the open driveway did not prevent the property from having curtilage. Id. As such, the property satisfied the enclosure requirement for curtilage. FEC56Id.Furthermore, a property touch with enclosures has curtilage even with an opening at the driveway. Jacobs v. State, 41 So. 3d 1004, 1 006 (Fla. App. 2010). Defendant burglarized FEC57aluminum siding from a vacant home surrounded by a fence. Id. at 1005. The property contained a fenced in yard on three sides, and a low-wall stoop at the front yard with an opening for the driveway. Id. at 1006. The Court held that the property had sufficient enclosure of some form to establish curtilage because all sides of the property were enclosed and an open driveway need not be part of the enclosureFEC58. Id.Now, FEC59in the instant case, a property does not have curtilage when there is no form of an enclosure surrounding the property. Mr. Bishops property has a chain-link fence in the backyard, a short hedge wall on one side, a short stone wall at the front of the property, and no barrier at all on the other side of the property.FEC60The Court in Hamilton, did not find the several unevenly spaced trees as sufficient enough evidence to support curtilage. Hamilton, 660 So. 2d 1038, 1047. Therefore, if having separated trees as a n enclosure is not enough evidence for curtilage then, here, in the instant case not having a barrier at all is no evidence for curtilage. Similar to Hamilton, where the property missed sufficient enclosure on part of the property, here, Mr. Bishops property needs an enclosure on one side of the property, which lacks curtilage. Therefore, like in Hamilton, a court would find Mr. Bishops partly open property to lack curtilage.Analogously, a property lacks curtilage when it is not enclosed on all sides. Mr. Bishops property consists of a chain-link fence along the backyard, a line of three-foot hedges along the side of the property where the detached garage is located, and a short stone wall along the front yard with the driveway open. There is no boarder on the fourth side of Mr. Bishops property, that side is completely open. FEC61In Martinez, the Court held that not having a barrier surrounding the property, including the detached structures of a property, falls short of bringing unattached structures within the curtilage of the home. Martinez, 700 So. 2d 142, 145. Almost similar to FEC62Martinez, where the property was enclosed on barely two sides, here, Mr. Bishops property was enclosed on all three sides. Consequently, the lack of a boarder surrounding that fourth side of Mr. Bishops property, would deem the broad(a) property, including the detached garage, as not having curtilage. Therefore, in the instant case, the detached garage would not be considered a dwelling because its property is not enclosed on one side, which lacks curtilage.Nevertheless, a property has curtilage even when there is an opening for the driveway. In the instant case, among other types of enclosures around Mr. Bishops property, there is a short-stone wall at the front of the property with an opening for the driveway. In Dubose, the Court held that an enclosure need not be continuous . . . and that an unenclosed opening for ingress and egress does not preclude a determination that the yard is included in the curtilage of a house. Dubose, 75 So. 3d 385. Although, Dubose and Mr. Bishops properties are similar in that both have a low-walled stoop FEC63at the front of the property with an opening for the driveway, there is a conflict as to the stay sides of the properties to the cases respectively. In contrast to Dubose, where the rest sides of the property were enclosed by a chain-link fence, here, in the instant case one of the remaining sides of Mr. Bishops property lacks some form of enclosure. FEC64Therefore, the unenclosed side of Mr. Bishops property, would lack evidence to pay curtilage to a dwelling. As such, the property where the detached garage is located would not have curtilage, and therefore the garage would not be considered a dwelling.Additionally, curtilage exist when an enclosed property has an open driveway. In the FEC65instant case, Mr. Bishops front yard has a short, stone wall with no gate in the driveway. In Jacobs, the Court held that the yard was delineated by some form of enclosure, and this enclosure included the opened driveway. Jacobs, 41 So 3d 1006. Although similar to Jacobs, where the property contained a low-walled stoop with an open driveway, FEC66here, in the instant case Mr. Bishop also has a low stone wall with open driveway, however the main difference is the remaining sides of the properties. Id. In contrast, the property in Jacobs was fenced in on the remaining three sides, while in the instant case, Mr. Bishops property had enclosures on only two of the three remaining sides. Therefore, although Mr. Bishops front yard with the open driveway would still establish curtilage (on a fully enclosed property), having one side of the property without some form of enclosure does not provide curtilage. As such, Mr. Bishops property does not have curtilage.Since, Mr. Bailey burglarized FEC67a detached garage on a property that was not enclosed on all sides, it does not have curtilage, and therefore doe s not meet the dwelling element.CONCLUSIONTo be convicted of burglary of a dwelling, intent, entry, and dwelling are elements that must be met. Mr. Bailey satisfies the intent element because he had the intention of stealing the sander by hiding and compass over the hedges. Mr. Bailey also satisfies the entry element because while standing at the neighbors property, his arm went into Mr. Bishops property through the open garage window. FEC68Mr. Bailey does not satisfy the dwelling element because the detached garage was located on a property that was not enclosed on all sides, which lacks curtilage. All elements of burglary of a dwelling must be met in order to be convicted. Although, Mr. Bailey meets the entry and intent elements, he does not meet the dwelling element FEC69due to the lack of curtilage on the property, and therefore would not be convicted of burglary of a dwelling. tick off grid belowSectionPossiblePointsPoints EarnedCommentsStyle/ coiffure43Dont end page with hea dersCitations52.5Major worry with short cites. Also had improper jurisdictional references.Quotations22 piece149At propagation, writing clear and other times awkward and wordy. Be careful with word selection. Commas are a problem.ISSUES PRESENTED42Not precise enough as indicated. Rule is authentically rule of burglary burglary occurs when a defendant enters a dwelling with intent to commit a crime. Then go to facts on entry. Same rule then goes in sub issue B.BRIEF ANSWERS42 ill-judged legal standard and inadequate explanation of answerSTATEMENT OF FACTS52.5In addition to comments, curtilage requires review of fencing or walls, so need those facts. Should also have fact that Bishop identified sander in truck.DISCUSSION SECTIONMain C and Rule75.5 calculate comments.A. Entry Total1512Organization/CREAC Structure22Rule32.5Issue needs to be clearer (when his body not on bishops property)E