Colbert v. State, 78 So. 3d 111

Colbert appeals his burglary conviction and sentence, challenging the information under Florida burglary of a dwelling (810.02(3)(b)).
The indictment alleges the burglary occurred by taking a bicycle from an area in front of the townhouse.
The trial court denied Colbert's motion to dismiss the information, and Colbert argues the taken area is not an 'attached porch' under 810.011(2).
810.011(2) defines 'dwelling' to include an attached porch, among other features, designed to be occupied at night.
The bicycle was taken from an area consisting of a concrete pad and mulch in front of the townhouse, which was open to the street and public access.
The First District reverses, holding the area is not an 'attached porch' and thus not within the dwelling definition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the taking occurred from an 'attached porch' under 810.011(2).	Colbert	State	Area not an attached porch; reverse.

Weber v. State, 776 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (unenclosed slab near dwelling not an attached porch)
Small v. State, 710 So.2d 591 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (dicta: carport with partial enclosure may qualify as attached porch)
Blanchard v. State, 767 So.2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (front porch of duplex considered part of dwelling)
Hamilton v. State, 660 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 1995) (narrow construction of 'attached porch' in dwelling context)
Ferrara v. State, 19 So.3d 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (considered porch porch-like structures in attached porch analysis)