Jeremy Ferrara [“Ferrara”] appeals his conviction of burglary of a dwelling for stealing a screen door and attempting to steal copper tubing from the air conditioning unit of a vacant residence. He mainly contends that he cannot be convicted of burglary of a dwelling because he did not enter the structure. 

We affirm. On October 19, 2007, between 5 and 6 a.m., Ralph Philbin, an employee of the St. Petersburg Times, was standing outside the Times building when he noticed a dark colored car pull into the carport of the unoccupied property across the street. The employee then heard a loud noise, and he called 911. The car remained at the dwelling for about five minutes and then it departed. In response to the dispatch of a burglary in progress, Detective Brian Mott approached the residence. As he was approaching, he saw a dark colored pick-up truck departing.
The truck accelerated to seventy-five miles per hour, then made an abrupt u-turn and stopped. The driver fled on foot. A search of the vehicle revealed Ferrara’s identification and a screen door in the bed of the truck. Meanwhile, Deputy Jill Morrell . . . heard a hissing sound, which she determined to be the sound of Freon escaping from an outdoor air conditioner situated underneath the roof of an attached carport. The air conditioner had been pulled away from the house and the copper wiring had been cut.

She then went around to the front of the house and found that a screen door appeared to have been removed from its hinges. She did not find any other signs of forced entry.
Ferrara contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the burglary of a dwelling charge because the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for burglary of a dwelling. Specifically, he contends that the State failed to prove that a burglary of a dwelling occurred with regard to either the screen door or the copper tubing from the air conditioner because neither involved an entry into the house, an attached porch, or the curtilage.

To prove a burglary of a dwelling, the State needs to prove that a defendant entered a dwelling with the intent to commit an offense therein. Section 810.011(2), Florida Statutes (2008), defines “dwelling” as: “a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether such building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night, together with the curtilage thereof. . . .” (Emphasis added). The standard jury instructions define “dwelling” as “a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether such building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night, together with the enclosed space of ground and outbuildings immediately surrounding it.” It also provides that the entry necessary “need not be the whole body of the defendant. It is sufficient if the defendant extends any part of the body far enough into the [structure] to commit [burglary].”

Questions:

1. Which specific element of burglary is the defendant contesting in this case?
2. The court refers to the term “curtilage” in regards to its analysis. What is “curtilage” and how is it relevant to the defendant’s case?
3. Do you agree with the court’s conclusion regarding both the screen door and the copper tubing? Why or why not?