Hobby v. State, 436 Md. 526

Ronald A. Hobby occupied 2742 Kirk Drive (a single-family house) from March–October 2010 without the owner’s permission; a purported lease (bearing the owner’s signature) was presented to support tenancy.
Owner Dr. Coryse Brathwaite moved out in July 2009, left the house secured, never authorized Hobby to occupy or sign a lease, and later disavowed the lease as a forgery.
Severn Savings Bank bought the property at foreclosure; its efforts to take and resell the property were delayed because Hobby claimed tenancy and occupied the house for ~7 months.
Hobby and his wife testified they paid cash to a third party (“Derrick Williams”) and used keys/garage opener supplied by that person to enter; they paid rent through April but stopped after learning of foreclosure and later that the lease was forged.
A jury convicted Hobby of theft (value > $100,000), forgery, uttering a false document, identity fraud, and first-degree burglary; Hobby appealed.
The Court of Appeals reviewed sufficiency of the evidence and valuation for enhanced theft sentencing (value tiers), and the burglary elements (dwelling, breaking, intent).

Issue	Hobby's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for theft (general)	No theft: no asportation, no proven deprivation or intent to permanently deprive	Theft proven by deception: occupancy obtained by forged lease and thereby possession was transferred	Evidence sufficient to support theft by deception (C.L. § 7-104(b))
Applicability of "exerting unauthorized control" theory	Squatter conduct not theft; trial court didn’t test this specific legislative intent argument	Issue waived — Hobby didn’t preserve this argument below or in intermediate appeal	Issue not reached on merits (not preserved)
Valuation for enhanced theft (>$100,000)	Value should be rental value of occupancy; State failed to prove > $100,000	State pointed to eventual sale price ($650,000) and asserted high value	Jury verdict for >$100,000 vacated; proper measure is fair market rental value; remanded to enter conviction for theft ≥ $10,000 but < $100,000 and resentencing
First-degree burglary (dwelling, breaking, intent)	House abandoned — not a dwelling; no breaking because entry was by keys/remote provided	House remains a dwelling despite vacancy; constructive/actual breaking shown because keys/remote obtained illegitimately	Evidence sufficient: house was a dwelling; use of illegitimately obtained keys/remote constituted breaking; intent to commit theft established

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
People v. Perry, 864 N.E.2d 196 (Ill. 2007) (occupancy/use of lodging is "property" and rental/use value may be the measure of theft)
McKenzie v. State, 407 Md. 120 (vacant but suitable-for-occupancy residence remains a "dwelling" for burglary)
Brooks v. State, 314 Md. 585 (appellate procedure: when greater-offense conviction reversed for value, court may enter conviction for lesser-included offense and remand for sentencing)