Florida Court Affirms 25-Year Burglary Sentence

FL District Court of Appeal Opinions

Filed March 18th, 2026

Detected March 18th, 2026

Summary

The District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed a 25-year sentence for burglary of a dwelling. The court found sufficient evidence to support the conviction, even for the portion of the dwelling underneath the home, and rejected the appellant's argument regarding insufficient evidence.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The First District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed a 25-year sentence imposed on Jonathan A. Branch for burglary of a dwelling with damage exceeding $1,000. The appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove his involvement as a principal, claiming he only remained underneath the home while a codefendant entered the living area. The court found that the motion for judgment of acquittal was insufficient to preserve the argument and, even if preserved, would be meritless as entering the area underneath a home can qualify as an entry into a "dwelling" under Florida Statutes.

This decision reinforces existing legal interpretations regarding the definition of "dwelling" for burglary charges in Florida. While this is an individual case outcome, it provides precedent for how courts may interpret entry into spaces beneath a home. Legal professionals involved in criminal defense or prosecution in Florida should be aware of this ruling and its implications for burglary cases, particularly concerning the sufficiency of evidence for entry and principal liability.

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 18, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Jonathan A. Branch v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Citations: None known
Docket Number: 1D2024-2165
Disposition: Affirmed
Opinion
Authorities (5)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Disposition

Affirmed

Combined Opinion

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA

No. 1D2024-2165

JONATHAN A. BRANCH,

Appellant,

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Dixie County.
Mark E. Feagle, Judge.

March 18, 2026

PER CURIAM.

Following his conviction and 25-year sentence for burglary of
a dwelling with damage in excess of $1,000 in violation of section
810.02(2)(c)2., Florida Statutes (2023), Appellant challenges the
denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. Appellant claims
that the evidence at trial showed only that he remained
underneath the elevated home while a codefendant went upstairs
and entered the living area. Appellant argues that there was
insufficient evidence to show he was a principal to the crime
committed by the codefendant.

The boilerplate motion for judgment of acquittal made by
Appellant’s trial counsel was insufficient to preserve the argument
now made by appellate counsel. See Brooks v. State, 762 So. 2d
879, 895 (Fla. 2000) (quoting Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.380(b)) (a motion
for judgment of acquittal “must fully set forth the grounds on
which it is based”). Even if preserved, Appellant’s argument here
would be meritless. The jury had evidence that Appellant entered
the “dwelling” as defined by section 810.011(2), Florida Statutes.
Entering the area underneath a home can qualify as the necessary
entry to meet that element of a burglary. See Tindall v. State, 997
So. 2d 1260, 1261 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (affirming conviction of
burglary when the perpetrator entered the crawl space
underneath a house and removed copper pipe because the
perpetrator “penetrated the invisible, vertical plane into the
airspace of house”). The video and photographs of the area
underneath the home, admitted at trial, showed that the area
functioned both as an attached porch, part of the statutory
definition of a dwelling in section 810.011(2), and as a carport,
which has been held to meet the definition of a dwelling. See
Medrano v. State, 199 So. 3d 413, 416 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); Ferrara
v. State, 19 So. 3d 1033, 1035 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); State v. Burston,
693 So. 2d 600, 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).