ILNews

Partial residential entry enough for conviction

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Whether your whole body, the upper half, or just a hand enters someone else's home, that's enough to be considered "entering" under Indiana statute for conviction of residential entry. The Court of Appeals ruled today on the definition of entering a dwelling under the residential entry statute, something the courts haven't defined in previous cases.

In Robert Williams v. State, 49A05-0612-CR-688, Williams appealed his conviction for residential entry, a Class D felony, arguing that only the upper half of his body leaned into the victim's residence through a window he had broken. To be convicted, he argued, his entire body had to enter the residence.

Williams went to the residence of a person identified as "Brown" in the brief, with whom he was romantically involved. When Brown refused to let Williams into the residence, he broke a bedroom window and leaned his upper half of his body through the window. Brown called the police and Williams was charged with residential entry and other offenses. After a jury trial Aug. 24, 2006, Williams was found guilty of residential entry and was sentence to three years incarceration, which was enhanced by 910 days because he was a habitual offender.

Defining "entering" under the statute for residential entry is new territory for the courts, wrote Chief Judge John Baker in the opinion. Williams argued the residential entry statute should require the entire body to enter a residence because the statute does not require an intention to commit a felony as the residential burglary statute does. In citing cases from California and Kansas, the rule is that any breach of the threshold by any body part constitutes entry in jurisdictions that have construed its burglary statute along those lines.

"Williams proposed rule of complete entry would lead to the absurd result that an individual could avoid prosecution for residential entry by simply ensuring that a foot or hand remained outside the threshold of the residence," wrote Chief Judge Baker.

Indeed, entering a home, no matter how slight, violates the occupant's possessory interest in the building and could lead to a dangerous situation. A partial entry into a home creates the same situation that the crime of residential entry is supposed to deter in the same manner as complete entry, and thus partial entry falls under the statute of residential entry.

In the same case, the state cross-appealed, stating Williams' appeal should be thrown out because he did not file the appeal in a timely manner. Although at the end of his trial, Williams said he would not appeal, he did send a letter to the trial court Sept 15, 2006, requesting the appointment of appellate counsel. The trial court appointed the County Public Defender the same day to represent him; however, when the court reporter contacted the County Public Defender's office Oct. 24, the office had not received notice of the trial court's order of the appointment of counsel. Because the time period for filing a notice for appeal had expired, the state argued Williams' appeal should be dismissed.

The Court of Appeals ruled that because Williams had sent the letter in a timely manner, he was not at fault for the failure of the appeal to be filed in a timely fashion and his request for appeal was granted.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT