Opinion ID: 2091132
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was Bond's House a Dwelling?

Text: Ferrell's first contention is he should have been found guilty of only a class C felony, burglary, because the structure he broke into was not a dwelling for purposes of the burglary statute, IC XX-XX-X-X. That statute provides: A person who breaks and enters the building or structure of another person, with intent to commit a felony in it, commits burglary, a Class C felony. However, the offense is a Class B felony if it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon or if the building or structure is a dwelling, and a Class A felony if it results in either bodily injury or serious bodily injury to any person other than a defendant. The term dwelling is defined in IC XX-XX-X-XX as follows: a building, structure, or other enclosed space, permanent or temporary, movable or fixed, that is a person's home or place of lodging. Ferrell argues the structure in question did not contain those accoutrements usual to the convenience of habitation and therefore did not constitute a dwelling, citing Burwell v. State (1988), Ind. App., 517 N.E.2d 812, 815. In that case, the Court of Appeals upheld Burwell's class B burglary conviction for burglarizing an apartment when no one was home. The victim in Burwell moved herself and her three children out of their apartment and into the safety of her parents' home after she discovered that her front door had been tampered with. Burwell burglarized the apartment three days later. At the time of the burglary, the victim no longer intended to sleep in her apartment; however, she had not relinquished possession and control to her landlord. The Court of Appeals stated: the term dwelling has been legislatively enlarged to afford protection to interests in the sanctity and security of habitation which, once established, do not necessarily fail because of the lack of use for purposes of sleep. Burwell, 517 N.E.2d at 814. Noting the victim's apartment still contained her food, utensils, personal belongings and clothing, the Burwell court went on to say: a structure, once a dwelling, does not lose that character until such time as its inhabiter vacates the premises to the extent it no longer contains those accoutrements usual to the convenience of habitation. Id. at 815. In the instant case, Ferrell contends the house he burglarized did not contain those accoutrements usual to the convenience of habitation. Unlike Burwell, Ferrell argues the victim in the instant case had put his house up for sale and had not slept there for approximately four months prior to the burglary. In fact, Bond did testify he was living with his girlfriend on a regular, full-time, basis at the time of the burglary and kept very little food in the house because he ate at his girlfriend's place. According to Ferrell, Bond merely stored his furniture, appliances and clothes in the house while it was listed with a real estate broker to be sold. The record, however, reveals evidence to the contrary. Bond maintained his home mailing address and telephone number at the house. In addition, Bond testified he went to the house nearly every day to pick up his mail and occasionally would go inside for a few hours to watch television or to get something to eat. In our opinion, Bond's furniture, appliances, clothing and food which he kept in the house did constitute those accoutrements usual to the convenience of habitation; therefore, his house did not lose its character as a dwelling. Burwell, supra . In Phillips v. State (1987), Ind., 514 N.E.2d 1073, this Court rejected appellant's argument that the residences he burglarized were not dwellings as defined in IC XX-XX-X-XX because the families who occupied those residences were temporarily out of their homes on vacation at the time of the break-ins. This Court held the burglary statute, IC XX-XX-X-X, does not require the occupier of the residence to be in the home at the time of the burglary. Phillips, 514 N.E.2d at 1075 (citing with approval Jones v. State (1983), Ind. App., 457 N.E.2d 231, 233-34). Similarly, in Welch v. State (1987), Ind., 509 N.E.2d 824, the victim's apartment was burglarized when he was not home. At the time of the burglary and for approximately one week prior thereto, the victim had been temporarily staying at his parents' house while awaiting the arrival of new furniture to replace that removed by his former roommate. He returned to his apartment shortly after the burglary. Welch, 509 N.E.2d at 825. This Court held that the victim's temporary absence did not alter the character of his apartment as a dwelling. Id. Accord, Middleton v. State (1979), 181 Ind. App. 232, 391 N.E.2d 657 (character of residence not vitiated where owner, temporarily absent while on five-month vacation, intended to return and did, in fact, return). This Court has traditionally held burglary, like arson, to be an offense against the habitation. Carrier v. State (1949), 227 Ind. 726, 732 n. 3, 89 N.E.2d 74, 76 n. 3. This is reflected in the burglary statute itself, which provides for greater penalties the closer the offense comes to endangering another's life or well-being. IC XX-XX-X-X. Even though Bond had not slept in the house for four months, he maintained his home address and telephone number there and would stop by to pick up his mail and generally check out the house on a regular basis. The victim's house constituted a dwelling for purposes of the burglary statute. We find no error on this issue.