FILED 


FEB 26, 2013 


In the Office of the Clerk of Court 


W A State Court of Appeals, Division III 


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 


DIVISION THREE 


STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 30S42-2-III 

) 

Respondent, ) 

) 

v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION 

) 

BRANDON S. LANGFORD, ) 


) 


Appellant. ) 


BROWN, J. - Brandon S. Langford appeals his residential burglary conviction, 

contending his due process rights were violated because the State failed to prove all 

essential elements ofthe crime. He argues the shed he entered was not a "dwelling" 

within the meaning ofRCW 9A.S2.02S(a). We affirm. 

FACTS 

Witnesses observed Mr. Langford in the vicinity ofhis brother's house carrying a 

gas can. His brother immediately checked his shed and discovered his gas can was 

missing. The police were called but were unable to locate Mr. Langford in the immediate 

area. Later, police responded to another call reporting a prowler less than one mile from 

the first incident. Police located Mr. Langford hiding under a bush. 
No. 30542-2-111 

State v. Langford 

The State charged Mr. Langford with residential burglary. At trial, the State 

offered as evidence a photograph showing the shed and residence were connected by a 

carport with the shed and house linked by a roof. The jury was instructed to convict Mr. 

Langford it must find he "entered or remained unlawfully in a dwelling." Clerk's Papers 

(CP) at 15. The jury was instructed, "Dwelling means any building or structure though 

movable or temporary, or a portion thereof, that is used or ordinarily used by a person for 

lodging." ld. at 19. The jury found Mr. Langford guilty as charged. He appealed. 

ANALYSIS 

The issue is whether sufficient evidence supports Mr. Langford's conviction for 

residential burglary in violation of his constitutional due process right to have every 

element proved beyond a reasonable doubt. "In a criminal prosecution, due process 

requires the State to prove every element of the charged crime beyond a reasonable 

doubt." State v. Smith, 155 Wn.2d 496, 502, 120 P.3d 559 (2005). 

Mr. Langford contends the State's evidence was insufficient to prove that he 

entered a dwelling, which is an essential element of residential burglary. RCW 

9A.S2.025(1). Evidence is sufficient if, when viewed in the light most favorable to the 

prosecution, it permits any rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of the crime 

beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192,201,829 P.2d 1068 (1992). 

"A claim of insufficiency admits the truth of the State's evidence and all inferences that 

reasonably can be drawn therefrom." ld. Circumstantial and direct evidence are equally 

2 

No. 30542-2-111 

State v. Langford 

reliable. State v. Delmarter, 94 Wn.2d 634,638,618 P.2d 99 (1980). Because it is the 

jury's responsibility to resolve credibility issues and determine the weight of the 

evidence, we defer to the trier of fact on issues of conflicting testimony, credibility of 

witnesses, and the persuasiveness of the evidence. State v. Camarillo, 115 Wn.2d 60, 71, 

794 P.2d 850 (1990). 

To prove residential burglary, the State had to prove Mr. Langford entered or 

remained in a "dwelling." RCW 9A.52.025( 1). A "dwelling" is "any building or 

structure ... which is used or ordinarily used by a person for lodging." RCW 

9A.04.l10(7). Mr. Langford argues the shed was not used for lodging. 

A garage attached to a home is a "dwelling" because it is "a portion" of a building 

used as lodging. State v. Murbach, 68 Wn. App. 509, 513, 843 P.2d 551 (1993). A tool 

room located within an apartment building is considered a dwelling. State v. Neal, 161 

Wn. App. Ill, 112-13,249 P.3d 211, review denied, 172 Wn.2d 1011 (2011). In Neal, 

Division Two of this court noted that the portion of the building entered does not have to 

be used for lodging. Id. at 113. The court held, "a dwelling may be a building or 

structure used for lodging, or it may be any portion ofa building where the portion is 

used for lodging." Id. at 114 (Emphasis added). 

Following the above authorities, the residence was a "dwelling." The shed, where 

the gas can was taken, was connected to the residence by a roof and carport. Thus, the 

shed is "a portion" of the residence. Murbach, 68 Wn. App. at 513. The proximity of the 

3 

No. 30542-2-111 

State v. Langford 

shed to the residence and the fact the two buildings were connected by a common roof is 

sufficient to meet the definition of "dwelling" as clarified in Murbach and Neal. Because 

Mr. Langford entered a "dwelling," the evidence was sufficient to convict him of 

residential burglary within dUe process principles. 

Affirmed. 

A majority ofthe panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 

2.06.040. 

WE CONCUR: 

Korsmo, C.J. Sidl::f4o"&=.

Brown, J. 

4­