129 A.3d 909
D.C.2016Background
- In October 2013, George Sydnor was observed loading six steel drill casings from a fenced, locked construction site used by Nicholson Construction into his truck and was arrested after admitting he was not authorized to be on site.
- The site was surrounded by an 8-foot chain-link fence, posted "no trespassing," with locked gates; new casings were kept in locked containers and used casings were stored on and near those containers.
- Sydnor was convicted by a jury of second-degree burglary, second-degree theft, and receiving stolen property; he did not challenge his theft conviction on appeal.
- The defense argued the construction site was not a "yard where any lumber, coal, or other goods or chattels are deposited and kept for the purpose of trade" under D.C. Code § 22‑801(b), because materials were stored for onsite use, not for sale.
- The trial court denied acquittal motions but instructed the jury on unlawful entry as a lesser-included offense; the jury convicted of burglary and the other counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a construction site storing materials for a job is a "yard...kept for the purpose of trade" under § 22‑801(b) | Gov: the site should be protected as a yard under the burglary statute | Sydnor: materials were stored for use in the project, not for sale, so not "for the purpose of trade" | Court: not a "yard...for the purpose of trade"; materials were kept for use, not for sale, so burglary statute does not apply |
| Whether unlawful entry is an appropriate remedy when burglary conviction is reversed | Gov: direct entry of judgment for unlawful entry is appropriate | Sydnor: unlawful entry may not be a lesser-included offense under Blockburger | Court: Sydnor requested unlawful-entry instruction at trial; sufficient evidence supports unlawful entry; direct judgment for unlawful entry ordered |
| Whether RSP conviction may stand alongside theft conviction | Gov: RSP should be vacated because one cannot be convicted of both for the same property | Sydnor: did not challenge RSP on appeal | Court: vacate RSP conviction and remand to vacate it |
| Whether court should expand burglary statute to include construction sites | Gov: implied request for broader protection | Sydnor: statutory text limits covered yards | Court: expansion is legislative function; court will not extend statute beyond its text |
Key Cases Cited
- Wynn v. United States, 48 A.3d 181 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Swinson v. United States, 483 A.2d 1160 (discussion of burglary scope and protected structures)
- Robinson v. United States, 100 A.3d 95 (court may direct judgment for lesser included offense when reversal affects only greater offense)
- Byrd v. United States, 598 A.2d 386 (discussing Blockburger test for lesser-included offenses)
- Cannon v. United States, 838 A.2d 293 (one cannot be convicted of both theft and receipt of stolen goods for the same property)