People v. Heft, 299 Mich. App. 69

At 1:30 a.m. on January 24, 2011, police investigated banging noises at 214 Cambrey after a 911 call.
Officers Walker and Madaj detained Heft and Kinville, separating them for questioning.
Footprints in the snow led from 220 Cambrey to 214 Cambrey; boots were compared to Heft’s footwear.
The house at 220 Cambrey had a broken door, freshly tracked snow, and removed heating registers and a broken hot water heater.
Kinville admitted entering 220 Cambrey by checking on the house; Heft claimed he walked up to the door but did not enter.
Kinville’s van, found nearby, contained flooring tools; Heft’s van keys were in his name; Kinville had prior residence at 220 Cambrey.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether entering without permission is a lesser included offense of entering with intent to commit a larceny	State contends subsumption requires identical elements	Heft argues it is subsumed by broken-and-entering theory	Not a lesser included offense; no complete subsumption
Whether the trial court erred by not instructing on the lesser offense	Evidence could support lesser offense instruction	No full subsumption; instruction not required	Judgment affirmed; no error in omission
Whether exculpatory evidence was preserved and whether counsel was ineffective	Police failure to photograph footprints possibly exculpatory; ineffective assistance for not challenging statements	No misconduct; strategy-based decisions; claims lack merit	No plain error; no ineffective assistance proven

People v Cornell, 466 Mich. 335 (2002) (distinguishes breaking and entering from entering where permission is present; subsumption analysis)
People v Wilder, 485 Mich. 35 (2010) (discusses limitations on lesser included offenses; general framework for subsumption)
People v Silver, 466 Mich. 386 (2002) (home invasion context; discusses entering without permission as an element)
People v Mendoza, 468 Mich. 527 (2003) (cited in related evidentiary context)