Enlarging a Preexisting Hole in a Door Screen in Order to Gain Entry Into Home Supports Burglary Conviction; No Abuse of Discretion in Award of Moving Expenses to Burglary Victim

State v. Rodriquez, Minn.Ct.App., 5/11/2015.  Mr. Rodriquez went over to V.M.’s home; his friend wasn’t there.  So, Mr. Rodriquez reached his finger through a small hole in the porch door screen, enlarged the hole so that he could reach his hand in and unlock the door.  For that a jury convicted Mr. Rodriquez of burglary in the second degree.

A bit later Mr. Rodriquez went over to H.B.’s home where he eventually encountered H.B.’s parents inside.  H.B.’s Mom pushed Mr. Rodriquez out of a window.  For this behavior, a jury convicted Mr. Rodriquez of trespass.

On appeal, Mr. Rodriquez said that the state didn’t prove that he committed a burglary of V.M.’s home.  This is because he committed the predicate offense, criminal damage to property by tearing the screen, either before or as he entered the building.  (The state did not allege that he had entered without consent with intent to commit a crime.)  The court rejects this assertion.  The court simply isn’t willing to get that far into the weeds.  Just like sex, “any penetration, however slight” suffices.  Mr. Rodriquez committed the predicate crime when he put his finger through the hole in the screen and made the hole larger in order to gain entry.

At sentencing, H.B.’s Mom sought restitution for moving expenses.  She said that after the burglary she could no longer live in the home and so the moved.  Mr. Rodriquez said that the moving expenses were not directly caused by his actions and thus not a cognizable item of restitution.  A trial court has broad discretion in ordering restitution.  However, the loss must be “directly caused by the conduct for which the defendant was convicted.”  State v. Latimer, 604 N.W.2d 103 (Minn.Ct.App. 1999).  And, the loss must not be “so attenuated in its cause that it cannot be said to result from the defendant’s act.”  State v. Palubicki, 727 N.W.2d 662 (Minn. 2007).  Here, the trial court found that H.B.’s Mom suffered psychological trauma as a result of Mr. Rodriquez’s criminal conduct and so the court did abuse its discretion in awarding the moving costs.