Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9A · Chapter 9A.52
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.52.025 (2026)

Residential burglary

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A person is guilty of residential burglary if, with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, the person enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling other than a vehicle.
(2) Residential burglary is a class B felony. In establishing sentencing guidelines and disposition standards, residential burglary is to be considered a more serious offense than second degree burglary.
[ 2011 1st sp.s. c 40 s 38; 1989 2nd ex.s. c 1 s 1; 1989 c 412 s 1.]

Notes:

Application—Recalculation of community custody terms—2011 1st sp.s. c 40: See note following RCW 9.94A.501.
Effective date—1989 2nd ex.s. c 1: "This act shall take effect July 1, 1990." [ 1989 2nd ex.s. c 1 s 4; 1989 c 412 s 4.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 224 cases (36 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: State v. Smith, 864 P.2d 1371 (Wash. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Smith, 864 P.2d 1371 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 8× “Although Smith does not dispute the trial court's finding that "he has consistently burglarized occupied residences", petitioner argues that consideration of this factor is an ex post facto application of the recently passed residential burglary statute, RCW 9A.52.025. [3, 4] We…”
State v. Stinton, 121 Wash. App. 569 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 6× “Stinton, reasoning *571 that the State lacked proof of Stinton’s intent to commit a crime inside the victim’s home, as required under RCW 9A.52.025. The State had argued that Stinton’s harassment of the victim inside her home in violation of a protection order constituted proof…”
State v. Stinton, 89 P.3d 717 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 6× “The State appealed, and we now reverse and remand for trial, holding that the violation of a provision of a protection order can serve as the predicate crime for residential burglary.”
State v. Wentz, 149 Wash. 2d 342 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 2× “See RCW 9A.52.025, .030. These limiting words show legislative intent that an area bounded by a fence that does not create an enclosed or contained area is not a “building” for purposes of the burglary statutes.”
State v. Wentz, 68 P.3d 282 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 2× “See RCW 9A.52.025, .030. These limiting words show legislative intent that an area bounded by a fence that does not create an enclosed or contained area is not a "building" for purposes of the burglary statutes.”
United States v. Timothy Allen Wenner, 351 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.52.025(1). A “dwelling” is “any building or structure, though movable or temporary, or a portion thereof, which is used or ordinarily used by a person for lodging.”
State v. Douglas, 116 P.3d 1012 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “Crist, 37 we outlined a four-part test for determining what it means to “remain unlawfully” under RCW 9A.52.025: “Unlawful remaining" occurs when (1) a person has lawfully entered a dwelling pursuant to license, invitation or privilege; (2) the invitation, license or privilege…”
State v. Douglas, 116 P.3d 1012 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “Crist, [36] we outlined a four-part test for determining what it means *1019 to "remain unlawfully" under RCW 9A.52.025: "Unlawful remaining" occurs when (1) a person has lawfully entered a dwelling pursuant to license, invitation or privilege; (2) the invitation, license or…”
State v. Winings, 107 P.3d 141 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “¶ 41 Winings' conviction of first degree burglary is comparable to residential burglary as defined in RCW 9A.52.025. That statute provides that "[a] person is guilty of residential burglary if, with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, the person enters…”
State v. Grimes, 966 P.2d 394 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 5× “Grimes was charged with residential burglary, RCW 9A.52.025, and he was released pending trial.”
State v. McDonald, 123 Wash. App. 85 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “RCW 9A.52.025. RCW 9A.52.030. RCW 9A.52.025.”
State v. Murbach, 843 P.2d 551 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “She contends the court erred when it allowed the State to amend the information on the morning of trial from second degree burglary to residential burglary, a violation of RCW 9A.52.025. She asserts the late amendment prejudiced her, or, alternatively, the attached garage which…”
Show all 224 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.52.025(1) — 116 cases
United States v. Timothy Allen Wenner, 351 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2003). “Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.52.025(1). A “dwelling” is “any building or structure, though movable or temporary, or a portion thereof, which is used or ordinarily used by a person for lodging.”
State v. Devitt, 218 P.3d 647 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
State v. Devitt, 152 Wash. App. 907 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
State v. Wentz, 149 Wash. 2d 342 (Wash. 2003). “See RCW 9A.52.025, .030. These limiting words show legislative intent that an area bounded by a fence that does not create an enclosed or contained area is not a “building” for purposes of the burglary statutes.”
State v. Wentz, 68 P.3d 282 (Wash. 2003). “See RCW 9A.52.025, .030. These limiting words show legislative intent that an area bounded by a fence that does not create an enclosed or contained area is not a "building" for purposes of the burglary statutes.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.52.025(2) — 19 cases
State v. Smith, 864 P.2d 1371 (Wash. 1993). “Although Smith does not dispute the trial court's finding that "he has consistently burglarized occupied residences", petitioner argues that consideration of this factor is an ex post facto application of the recently passed residential burglary statute, RCW 9A.52.025. [3, 4] We…”
United States v. Adolfo Guerrero-Velasquez, 434 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2006).
State v. Pittman, 134 Wash. App. 376 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
State v. McDonald, 123 Wash. App. 85 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 9A.52.025. RCW 9A.52.030. RCW 9A.52.025.”
State v. Murbach, 843 P.2d 551 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “She contends the court erred when it allowed the State to amend the information on the morning of trial from second degree burglary to residential burglary, a violation of RCW 9A.52.025. She asserts the late amendment prejudiced her, or, alternatively, the attached garage which…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.