Opinion ID: 173036
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Arizona's Burglary Statute

Text: Having concluded that generic burglary of a dwelling is not limited to permanent, immovable structures, we must now consider whether the particular statute at issue, Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 13-1507, at least roughly corresponds to the generic definition of burglary of a dwelling. See Garcia-Caraveo, 586 F.3d at 1235-37. A state statute does not need to match the generic definition verbatim. The Guideline enhancement applies so long as the statute corresponds in substance to the generic meaning. Taylor, 495 U.S. at 599, 110 S.Ct. 2143; see also Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 193, 127 S.Ct. 815, 166 L.Ed.2d 683 (2007) ([T]o find that a state statute creates a crime outside the generic definition of a listed crime in a federal statute requires more than the application of legal imagination to a state statute's language. It requires a realistic probability, not a theoretical possibility, that the State would apply its statute to conduct that falls outside the generic definition of a crime. (emphasis added)). As already mentioned, Arizona defines burglary in the second degree as entering or remaining unlawfully in or on a residential structure with the intent to commit any theft or any felony therein. Ariz. Rev.Stat. Ann. § 13-1507(A). A residential structure is any structure, movable or immovable, permanent or temporary, that is adapted for both human residence and lodging whether occupied or not. Id. § 13-1501(11). The signature case applying the definition of residential structure is State v. Gardella, 156 Ariz. 340, 751 P.2d 1000 (1988), in which the state court of appeals concluded that breaking into the laundry room of a hotel was not burglary of a residential structure. Id. at 1002. The court distinguished between buildings that are used exclusively as residences and those that also have commercial purposes. Id. If the location is a residence, then the statute applies so long as the particular area entered is one that makes the building more suitable, comfortable or enjoyable for human occupancy. Id. If, however,. . . the character of the building is commercial, then further inquiry must be made to determine the character of the use of the structure actually entered. Id. Under this analysis, a guest room in a hotel is a residential structure, but the gift shop in that same hotel is not. Id.; see also State v. Hussain, 189 Ariz. 336, 942 P.2d 1168, 1170 (1997) (holding that a motel room qualifies as a residential structure); State v. Bass, 184 Ariz. 543, 911 P.2d 549, 550-52 (1995) (noting that trial court properly instructed jury concerning only burglary of a non-residential structure, where structure at issue was an almost-completed log cabin home that lacked a certificate of occupancy, water, electricity, and doors, and prosecution failed to introduce substantial contrary evidence that the structure was adapted for both human residence and lodging); State v. Ekmanis, 183 Ariz. 180, 901 P.2d 1210, 1211-13 (1995) (holding that a storage area under the same roof as the main house, but separated by a walkway, is a residential structure). Therefore, as interpreted by the Arizona courts, the term residential structure in Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 13-1507(A) corresponds in substance to the generic definition of dwelling reflected in the enumerated offense of § 2L1.2 (i.e., burglary of a dwelling). Nor is there a realistic probability that the Arizona courts would interpret the term residential structure in a manner that would sever this correspondence in the future. Accordingly, under the parties' arguments and our analysis in this case, we conclude that the district court did not err in determining that Mr. Rivera-Oros's second degree felony burglary conviction pursuant to the Arizona statute constituted a crime of violence under § 2L1.2, warranting a sixteen-level enhancement.