Court Opinion

ID: 9796025
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:45:38.49614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:44:28.212747
License: Public Domain

Pierron, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part: I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which finds the structure here constituted a building under our burglaiy statute.
State v. Alvis, 30 Kan. App. 2d 889, 53 P.3d 1232 (2002), dealt with this issue in detail and determined that basic habitability was the key issue. I do not believe the majority opinion validly distinguishes Alvis from the instant case. The issue was essentially the same. I will not reproduce the rationale of Alvis but believe it would be controlling.