the defendant as she said for three or four years boyfriend girlfriend right here i didn't realize that he didn't come home that night sure so until about ten thirty in the morning when the phone call the phone rang  is the individual who has control the keys without sh he knew with no authority and when he took the teams he took the computer took her computer out of the house there's there's nothing better to share that is seeing to it to commit it that they're in the true source seems to indicate that in occupancy of the right to possession of this apartment then we wouldn't be here this wouldn't be such an issue the problem here it would be easier to stay to charge them with criminal damage to property the right i mean the place one felony seems to question and cross examination i think was the first question that he asked of the female the girl yes because she said we were boys from a girl fr m my client living with you on march sixteenth two thousand and thirteen answer yes the actual question was had the defendant been living with you and march sixteenth yes that was the question and she said yes and this is the danger of the incident correct yes yes ok so how do you square are the victim saying the defendant lived with me and that they not come in he couldn't live it come in without her saying ok i'm here you can come in i'll lock the door ok you can come in because i'm going to leave you makes these for the specific limited amount of time and only then and then when you come getting along famously or sixteen and then in the middle of the day they get in with an argument of it and she said leave my house and he said i'm not going there under the residential burg case law that requires a history of casual entry without permission of the custody of person and we're told this judge there is also a key saw that indicates that you have to show the right to possession and the right to occupancy which  they had this relationship for three or four years and that person keeps his clothing that her and other belong in sleeves they're right it comes in in texas with permission does it make it any less his residence it's a conditional residency it's actual scenario are you saying that he could not have committed residential burglary because she told him he couldn't commit but he ended peacefully community with the facts in that case would be much more through the lips of a defendant that would show that  case in that case there was a delinquent minor the court found that it really had not been living there the parents was actually in a home of some sort trying to get treatment for i believe drug addiction and the c longer living at that home and in addition the court found that in this case we don't have that his head at some other facility he's he's he's been there and consistent basis four hundred dollars right it was her computer but he wasn't convicted of that because on of the amount of money that would have had to be proven your honor but he could have been convicted of a misdemeanor girlfriends who are around police officers should give them consent to search the defendant's computer which contain child pornography on it that's entirely different from this case and she was inside the home she had she had  wrongs there and it was really an issue of consent that is not the issue here which was whether the defendant entered the drawing of another similarly evidence name to me seven first district there that's a criminal trespass to property case the complainant called the police on a roommate she wanted to addict there was evidence that the roommate moved in without signing a lease but she had given the complainan