Commonwealth v. Graham, 607 Pa. 580

Graham was convicted of burglary and related offenses for entering a house under construction, taking appliances and tools, and then setting the building on fire (arson).
At trial, the owner testified the exterior work was largely complete, but interior work remained unfinished, uninhabitable, and unfurnished.
Jury verdicts included burglary and arson counts; arson endangering occupants was acquitted, arson endangering property was convicted.
The trial court and Superior Court treated the burglary as a first-degree felony based on a monetary loss measure ($25,000), not on adaptation evidence.
The issues on appeal centered on whether the structure was adapted for overnight accommodation at the time of entry and whether the evidence sufficed to prove that adaptation.
This Court held the evidence was insufficient to prove adaptation at the time of the burglary and reversed the Superior Court, remanding for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the structure was adapted for overnight accommodation at the time of entry	Graham: jury found lack of adaptation; structure was a project under construction	Commonwealth: structure was adapted due to its nature and intended use	Insufficient evidence of adaptation; reversal and remand
Whether the burglary should be graded as first- or second-degree based on adaptation	Graham: no adaptation means second-degree	Commonwealth: broad interpretation of adaptation supports first-degree	Grading not supported by evidence of adaptation; reversal of first-degree finding
Whether Apprendi concerns were implicated by the absence of a jury finding on adaptation	Appellant: Apprendi issues moot since sentence tied to adaptation	Commonwealth: Apprendi concerns apply	Apprendi issue avoided by disposition; not reached on the merits

Commonwealth v. Nixon, 801 A.2d 1241 (Pa. Super. 2002) (considering adaptation focused on structure and intended use)
Commonwealth v. Majeed, 548 Pa. 48 (1997) (occupancy/possession principle in burglary)
Commonwealth v. Hagan, 539 Pa. 609 (1995) (occupied structure concept; business-structure placement)
Commonwealth v. Aponte, 579 Pa. 246 (2004) (Apprendi implications for sentencing)
Spahn v. ZBA, 602 Pa. 83 (2009) (statutory construction and evidentiary review framework)
Commonwealth v. Meals, 590 Pa. 110 (2006) (evidentiary sufficiency standard for appellate review)
Commonwealth v. Booth, 564 Pa. 228 (2001) (strict construction of penal statutes; rule of lenity)
Blankenship v. State, 780 S.W.2d 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (sub-factors guiding adaptation assessment (non-binding outside Pa.))