Dillard v. State (2013)

Whether or not a criminal trespass charge is given, the State bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the intent set out in the burglary statute: intent to commit a felony or theft.5 See, e.g., Dillard v. State, 323 Ga. App. 333, 335 (1) (753 5 With regard to intent, the jury in this case was instructed as follows: An intent to steal may be shown in many ways provided you, the jury, believe beyond a reasonable doubt that it existed from t…

Whether or not a criminal trespass charge is given, the State bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the intent set out in the burglary statute: intent to commit a felony or theft. 5 See, e.g., Dillard v. State, 323 Ga. App. 333, 335 (1) ( 753 SE2d 772 ) (2013) (noting that burglary is a specific intent crime).

“As the trial court would not have been authorized to charge the jury on criminal trespass as a lesser included offense of burglary, it logically follows that [Daniel] cannot show that his trial counsel’s failure to [preserve an objection to the lack of] such a charge was ineffective.” Dillard v. State, 323 Ga. App. 333, 337 (2) ( 753 SE2d 772 ) (2013) (citation omitted).

See Dillard v. State, 323 Ga.App. 333 , 753 S.E.2d 772 , 774 (2013) (“Burglary is a specific intent crime—the State must prove that the defendant intended to commit a felony after making an unauthorized entry.”) (citation omitted); Bowman v. State, 258 Ga. 829 , 376 S.E.2d 187, 188-89 (1989) (finding that criminal trespass requires the state to prove specific intent); Brown v. State, 302 Ga.App. 641 , 692 S.E.2d 9, 11 (2010) (noting for theft by taking, “[t]he evidence must …

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 ( 104 SCt 2052 , 80 LE2d 674) (1984); Dillard v. State, 323 Ga. App. 333, 336 (2) ( 753 SE2d 772 ) (2013).

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 ( 104 SCt 2052 , 80 LE2d 674) (1984); Dillard v. State, 323 Ga. App. 333, 336 (2) ( 744 SE2d 863 ) (2013).