### FILED FEB 26, 2013 In the Office ofthe Clerk ofCourt W A State Court ofAppeals, 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### v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) BRANDON S. LANGFORD, ) ) Appellant.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 dueprocess rights were violatedbecause the State failed toprove 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 canwas 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 locatedMr. Langfordhiding under a bush.No. 30542-2-111 State v. Langford
The State charged Mr. Langford with residential burglary. Attrial, the State offered as evidence aphotograph showing the shed and residence were connected by a carport with the shed and house linked by a roof. Thejurywas instructed to convict Mr. Langford it must find he "entered orremained unlawfully in a dwelling." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 15. Thejurywas instructed, "Dwelling means any building or structure though movable or temporary, or aportion thereof, that is used orordinarily used by aperson for lodging." 

### ld. at 19. Thejury 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 ofhis constitutional due process right to have every elementprovedbeyond a reasonable doubt. "In a criminalprosecution, due process requires the State to prove every element ofthe 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, whichisan essential element ofresidential burglary. RCW 9A.S2.025(1). Evidence is sufficient if, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, itpermits any rational trier offact to find the essential elements ofthe crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192,201,829P.2d 1068 (1992). "A claim ofinsufficiency admits the truth ofthe State's evidence and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom." 

### ld. Circumstantial and direct evidence are equally 2No. 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'sresponsibility to resolve credibility issues and determine the weight ofthe evidence, we defer to the trier offact on issues ofconflicting testimony, credibility of witnesses, and the persuasiveness ofthe 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 notused for lodging. A garage attached to a home is a "dwelling" because it is "aportion" ofa 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, 112-13,249P.3d 211, review denied, 172 Wn.2d 1011 (2011). InNeal, Division Two ofthis court noted that the portion ofthe 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 anyportion of a buildingwhere theportion 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 roofand carport. Thus, the shed is "aportion" ofthe residence. Murbach, 68 Wn. App. at 513. Theproximity ofthe 3No. 30542-2-111 State v. Langford
shed to the residence andthe fact the two buildings were connectedby a common roofis sufficientto meetthe definition of"dwelling" as clarified inMurbach andNeal. Because Mr. Langford entered a "dwelling," the evidence was sufficient to convicthim of residential burglary within dUe process principles. Affirmed. A majority ofthe panel has determinedthis opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, butit will be filed for public record pursuantto RCW 2.06.040.

WE CONCUR: 

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

### J.

4­