From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Massey v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Mar 10, 1977
141 Ga. App. 557 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977)

Summary

In Massey, the Supreme Court of Georgia rejected Hayes, holding that "the clear intent of [the Georgia burglary] statute is that for a person to be guilty of burglary of a vehicle such vehicle must be designed for use as a dwelling."

Summary of this case from United States v. Cornette

Opinion

53389.

SUBMITTED FEBRUARY 3, 1977.

DECIDED MARCH 10, 1977.

Attempted burglary. Cobb Superior Court. Before Judge Bullard.

Frank G. Smith, Alton T. Milam, for appellant.

George W. Darden, District Attorney, Joseph L. Chambers, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.


The defendant was indicted for burglary, tried and then convicted for a criminal attempt to commit burglary. Because of his conviction for a prior felony he was sentenced to 10 years. See Code Ann. § 27-2511 (Ga. L. 1953, Nov. Sess., pp. 289, 290; Ga. L. 1974, pp. 352, 355). His appeal to this court followed. Held:

1. The facts reveal that on December 29, 1975, the defendant was caught and arrested after having broken the left front vent window of a Volkswagen automobile. The appellant contended that he could not be convicted for an attempt to commit burglary since an automobile per se can not be the subject of a burglary. We agree with the appellant's contention.

The statute reads: "A person commits burglary when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he enters or remains within the dwelling house of another or any building, vehicle, railroad car, watercraft, or other such structure designed for use as the dwelling of another ..." Criminal Code of Ga. § 26-1601 (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1249, 1287).

The clear intent of this statute is that for a person to be guilty of burglary of a vehicle such vehicle must be designed for use as a dwelling.

The holding in Hayes v. State, 125 Ga. App. 55 (1) ( 186 S.E.2d 435), which is contrary to that which is stated above is hereby overruled.

It should be noted that from July 1, 1976 hence, entry of a vehicle with intent to commit a theft or felony is punishable under the provisions of Criminal Code of Ga. § 26-1813.1 (Ga. L. 1976, pp. 186, 187, effective July 1, 1976).

The defendant's conviction of attempted burglary was erroneous and must be reversed with direction that a new trial be granted.

2. The remaining enumerations of error are either without merit or are unlikely to recur.

Judgment reversed. Bell, C. J., Deen, P. J., Webb, Marshall, McMurray, Smith and Shulman, JJ., concur.

SUBMITTED FEBRUARY 3, 1977 — DECIDED MARCH 10, 1977.


Summaries of

Massey v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Mar 10, 1977
141 Ga. App. 557 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977)

In Massey, the Supreme Court of Georgia rejected Hayes, holding that "the clear intent of [the Georgia burglary] statute is that for a person to be guilty of burglary of a vehicle such vehicle must be designed for use as a dwelling."

Summary of this case from United States v. Cornette

In Massey v. State, 141 Ga. App. 557 (234 S.E.2d 144) (1977), eight judges, sitting en banc, overturned Hayes and ruled that "the clear intent of this statute is that for a person to be guilty of burglary of a vehicle such vehicle must be designed for use as a dwelling."

Summary of this case from DeFrancis v. Manning
Case details for

Massey v. State

Case Details

Full title:MASSEY v. THE STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Mar 10, 1977

Citations

141 Ga. App. 557 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977)
234 S.E.2d 144

Citing Cases

Foster v. State

Therefore, there was no evidence which even suggested the crime of burglary. Massey v. State, 141 Ga. App.…

DeFrancis v. Manning

Hayes had not been overturned at the time of appellee's conviction. In Massey v. State, 141 Ga. App. 557 (…