The presentment of proposed findings and conclusions was first set for June 21, but was continued. Eventually the findings were filed in September, almost three weeks after Mr. Lopez filed his appellate brief. However, untimely written findings will not require reversal as long as the defendant is not prejudiced and the State does not tailor the findings to meet the issues raised in Mr. Lopez's brief. Mr. Lopez contends the State significantly altered the trial court's oral findings to bolster the elements of malicious mischief and residential burglary. To prove third degree malicious mischief, the State had to show that Mr. Lopez knowingly and maliciously caused physical damage to the property of another.
Physical damage is any diminution in the value of property as a consequence of the act.
In its oral ruling the court stated that the only evidence regarding the broken globe was that offered by the State. Clearly the written findings are consistent with the oral findings. The same is true of the findings regarding the elements of residential burglary. A person is guilty of residential burglary if, with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, the person enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling other than a vehicle. While remaining unlawfully in the house, however, Mr. Lopez formed the intent to commit a crime.