{
  "id": 8521193,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BRIAN KEITH HOBGOOD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hobgood",
  "decision_date": "1993-10-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 9220SC1216",
  "first_page": "262",
  "last_page": "265",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "112 N.C. App. 262"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "65 L. Ed. 2d 282",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "446 U.S. 929",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6242663,
        6241351,
        6241707,
        6241998,
        6241039,
        6242940,
        6242301
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/446/0929-06",
        "/us/446/0929-02",
        "/us/446/0929-03",
        "/us/446/0929-04",
        "/us/446/0929-01",
        "/us/446/0929-07",
        "/us/446/0929-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "260 S.E.2d 629",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "646"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "298 N.C. 573",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573777
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "597"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/298/0573-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 N.C. 430",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277787
      ],
      "year": 1858,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "432"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/50/0430-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 S.E. 209",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1901,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "210"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "129 N.C. 704",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8662594
      ],
      "year": 1901,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "707"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/129/0704-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 N.C. 471",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "year": 1864,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "472"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 S.E.2d 655",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "284 N.C. 255",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561286,
        8561224,
        8561265,
        8561238,
        8561309
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/284/0255-04",
        "/nc/284/0255-01",
        "/nc/284/0255-03",
        "/nc/284/0255-02",
        "/nc/284/0255-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "198 S.E.2d 721",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 N.C. 666",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559840,
        8559809,
        8559848,
        8559821,
        8559860
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/283/0666-03",
        "/nc/283/0666-01",
        "/nc/283/0666-04",
        "/nc/283/0666-02",
        "/nc/283/0666-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 S.E.2d 272",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "273"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 N.C. App. 460",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550863
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "461"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/18/0460-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 S.E.2d 179",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "181"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "291 N.C. 137",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8557412
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "141"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/291/0137-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 343,
    "char_count": 5408,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.764,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.44433932655305e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8034020516254037
    },
    "sha256": "2450972c0809f57c874814f60a066bf251d3caf01e6f6dd7fcf6c095e091575b",
    "simhash": "1:3a3fcc7495ab024f",
    "word_count": 906
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:48:17.524906+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges EAGLES and ORR concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BRIAN KEITH HOBGOOD"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nOn 31 January 1992, a jury found Brian Keith Hobgood (defendant) guilty of one count of second-degree burglary, and defendant was sentenced to a term of twenty-five years. Due to lack of accurate transmittal of court documents to the Office of the Appellate Defender, defendant lost his right to appeal. On 9 September 1992, the Office of the Appellate Defender filed a petition for writ of certiorari in this Court. On 17 September 1992, the petition was allowed.\nFor the purposes of this appeal, it is not disputed that on 8 February 1991, defendant broke and entered, at night, a condominium unit, owned by Jackie Upchurch and located in the Foxfire Resort Country Club in Moore County, with the intent to commit a felony therein. The undisputed evidence also reveals that the condominium was one of approximately seventy residential units available for rent through the Foxfire rental program, had been rented on other occasions, and was not rented or otherwise occupied on the night of 8 February 1991. Jackie Upchurch maintained a residence in High Falls.\nThe single issue presented is whether an uninhabited, unoccupied residential condominium unit, available for rent, is a \u201cdwelling house or sleeping apartment\u201d as those terms are used in the definition of burglary.\nBurglary is an offense which consists of five elements: (1) a breaking, (2) and entering, (3) of a dwelling house or sleeping apartment of another, (4) in the nighttime, and (5) with the intent to commit a felony therein. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-51 (1986); State v. Beaver, 291 N.C. 137, 141, 229 S.E.2d 179, 181 (1976). If the dwelling house or sleeping apartment is occupied, it is burglary in the first degree. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-51. If the dwelling house or sleeping apartment is not occupied, it is burglary in the second degree. Id.; State v. Alexander, 18 N.C. App. 460, 461, 197 S.E.2d 272, 273, cert. denied, 283 N.C. 666, 198 S.E.2d 721, cert. denied, 284 N.C. 255, 200 S.E.2d 655 (1973).\nA building qualifies as a dwelling house or sleeping apartment if \u201cthe owner or renter and his family, or any member of it,\u201d State v. Jake, 60 N.C. 471, 472 (1864), \u201cregularly or habitually sleeps there.\u201d State v. Foster, 129 N.C. 704, 707, 40 S.E. 209, 210 (1901). Regular, usual, or habitual describes that which \u201coccurs in ordinary practice or in the ordinary course of events.\u201d Webster\u2019s Third New International Dictionary 2524 (1966). \u201c[M]ere casual use of a tenement as a lodging, or only upon some particular occasions, will not constitute it a dwelling-house\u201d or a sleeping apartment. State v. Jenkins, 50 N.C. 430, 432 (1858). A motel room \u201cregularly and usually occupied by travelers for the purpose of sleeping\u201d is considered a sleeping apartment. State v. Nelson, 298 N.C. 573, 597, 260 S.E.2d 629, 646 (1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 929, 65 L. Ed. 2d 282 (1980); see 3 Wharton\u2019s Criminal Law \u00a7 335, at 208 (1980) (\u201crooms of an inn, hotel, or lodging house\u201d regarded as dwelling house).\nThe defendant argues that because \u201cno one was renting the condominium unit at the time of the break-in, and the owner . . . was not \u2018habitually dwelling and sleeping\u2019 there,\u201d the condominium was not a dwelling or sleeping apartment within the meaning of the burglary statute. We disagree.\nIt is not material that the condominium was not rented on the night of the breaking and entering. Likewise, it is not necessary that the owner or some family member habitually dwell or sleep in the unit. When a condominium unit is in the ordinary course of events used as a dwelling or for sleeping by either the owner, his family, or a renter, it qualifies as a dwelling or sleeping apartment within the meaning of the burglary statute. Because this residential condominium unit was regularly available for rent through a rental agency, it was in the ordinary course of events used as a dwelling or sleeping apartment and is within the meaning of the burglary statute. Accordingly, the trial court correctly denied the defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the charges.\nNo error.\nJudges EAGLES and ORR concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GREENE, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General David N. Kirkman, for the State.",
      "Appellate Defender Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., by Assistant Appellate Defender Susan G. White, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BRIAN KEITH HOBGOOD\nNo. 9220SC1216\n(Filed 5 October 1993)\nBurglary and Unlawful Breakings \u00a7 10 (NCI4th)\u2014 second-degree burglary \u2014condo available for rent \u2014unoccupied\nThe trial court correctly denied defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss charges of second-degree burglary where it was not disputed that defendant broke and entered a condominium at night with intent to commit a felony therein, that the condo was one of approximately seventy available for rent and had been rented on other occasions, and that the condo was not rented on that night. When a condominium unit is in the ordinary course of events used as a dwelling or for sleeping by either the owner, the owner\u2019s family, or a renter, it qualifies as a dwelling or sleeping apartment within the meaning of the burglary statute. It is not material that the condominium was not rented on the night of the breaking or entering. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-51.\nAm Jur 2d, Burglary \u00a7 3 et seq.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 31 January 1992 in Moore County Superior Court by Judge Melzer A. Morgan, Jr. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 September 1993.\nAttorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General David N. Kirkman, for the State.\nAppellate Defender Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., by Assistant Appellate Defender Susan G. White, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0262-01",
  "first_page_order": 292,
  "last_page_order": 295
}