– The only difference between residential entry and residential burglary is the element of intent to commit a felony therein; because residential entry contains all of the elements of residential burglary save one, residential entry is a lesser included offense of residential burglary. Vincent v. State, 639 N.E.2d 315 (Ind. App. 1994).
– Since it is impossible to commit burglary without committing residential entry, a trial court’s decision to merge a residential entry count with a burglary count was inappropriate, and remand with an order to vacate the conviction for the lesser included offense was required. Webster v. State, 708 N.E.2d 610 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
– Residential entry is a lesser included offense of burglary, which allows a felony prosecution for a housebreak without the need for proof of the intent to commit a target crime. Patterson v. State, 729 N.E.2d 1035 (Ind. App. 2000).
– A defendant’s belief that he has permission to enter must be reasonable in order for the defendant to avail himself of the defense of consent. McKinney v. State, 653 N.E.2d 115 (Ind. App. 1995).
– Where evidence tended to prove an abduction aimed at a sexual attack elsewhere, defendant barely entered residence of victim, and there was no sexual contact with victim at residence, state was entitled only to conviction for the lesser included offense of residential entry, not burglary. Richards v. State, 681 N.E.2d 208 (Ind. 1997).
– Defendant’s conviction of residential entry in violation of IC 35-43-2-1.5 was supported by sufficient evidence notwithstanding victim’s ambiguous testimony about whether defendant shoved victim through door of residence or whether victim shoved defendant through door. Copeland v. State, 802 N.E.2d 969 (Ind. App. 2004).
– When defendant, a friend of the victim’s fiance, entered the victim’s unlocked house and began performing oral sex on the victim while she was half asleep, then proceeded to sexual intercourse, the victim’s testimony was not so inherently improbable as to require a reversal of defendant’s convictions for deviate sexual conduct under IC 35-42-4-2(a) and for residential entry. The victim, whose fiance sometimes initiated sex when she was asleep, testified that she had been “dreaming” and “halfway asleep” when defendant first entered her bed, and her actions in calling another individual, instead of the police, after discovering defendant in her bedroom were reasonably explained as a state of panic. Nolan v. State, 863 N.E.2d 398 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
– Partial entry into a home created the same situation that the crime of residential entry was designed to deter in the same manner as a complete entry and, therefore, defendant’s partial entry fell within the scope of residential entry and the state produced sufficient evidence to sustain defendant’s conviction for residential entry under IC 35-43-2-1.5. – Williams v. State, 873 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. App. 2007).
– Conviction for residential entry under IC 35-43-2-1.5 was supported by evidence that defendant entered the residence through a locked door; the locked kitchen constituted a separate structure or enclosed space for purposes of IC 35-41-1-10 and while defendant had permission to be in garage, defendant did not have permission to enter the residence. Davidson v. State, 907 N.E.2d 612 (Ind. App. 2009).
IC § 35-43-2-1. Burglary.
A person who breaks and enters the building or structure of another person, with intent to commit a felony or theft in it, commits burglary, a Level 5 felony. However, the offense is:
(1) a Level 4 felony if the building or structure is a dwelling;
(2) a Level 3 felony if it results in bodily injury to any person other than a defendant;
(3) a Level 2 felony if it:
(A) is committed while armed with a deadly weapon; or
(B) results in serious bodily injury to any person other than a defendant; and
(4) a Level 1 felony if:
(A) the building or structure is a dwelling; and
(B) it results in serious bodily injury to any person other than a defendant.
DISCLAIMER – The information contained on this website is provided for educational and informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice or as an offer to perform legal services on any subject matter. The content of this web site contains general information and may not reflect current legal developments or information. The information is not guaranteed to be correct, complete or current. We make no warranty, expressed or implied, about the accuracy or reliability of the information at this website or at any other website to which it is linked. Recipients of content from this site should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in the site without seeking appropriate legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an attorney licensed in the recipient’s state. Nothing herein is intended to create an attorney-client relationship and shall not be construed as legal advice. This is not an offer to represent you, nor is it intended to create an attorney-client relationship.
Mr cardella, was by far the best attorney, I’ve ever had, or dealt with my entire life.the communication is 2nd to none. I’ve had many attorneys thru my life for various needs and this was by far the easiest process I’ve had. These days most attorneys you have to call several times and when u reach or see them they seem to not pay attention to you or what you want, Jeff is not like the rest. Definitely hire Jeff cardella!!!
I found Jeff to be an excellent attorney. He is very reasonable and level headed, empathetic but not a pushover. He always answered our questions directly. Hiring him was a great decision. Highly recommend and would use his services again.
Jeff demonstrated a great moral and positive character while working on my nephew’s case. He communicated promptly with my family as the case progressed and was easily accessible. We appreciated his honesty regarding the different scenarios and possible outcomes of the case. We were honor to have him as our attorney. Please do not hesitate to retain him, he will work diligently on your family behalf. We respected the fact he does a lot of the leg work himself.
I was thoroughly impressed with the service at Jeff Cardella Law Offices. One of the things that distinguished Mr. Cardella from some of the other law practices that I called was the level of care and customer service that was attached to our conversation. I called expecting to speak to a receptionist and was connected directly to him. Mr. Cardella took a true consultative approach to make sure that my needs was addressed specifically to my situation. I highly recommend giving the Cardella office a call.
My experience with Mr. Jeff Cardella was a positive experience since our first consult. He was reassuring and very reliable. I would recommend his services to everyone!
Great experience, helped me beat an undeserved ticket and allowed me to focus my time on my studies instead of dealing with it all myself. Would recommend to anyone.