## Facts

- Steven Ray Ingram entered a house in Lindale, Texas, without the owner’s effective consent and removed personal property.
- He was indicted for burglary of a habitation, with one enhancement paragraph alleging a prior burglary-of-a-building conviction; Ingram pleaded “true” to the enhancement.
- At trial, Ingram claimed he believed the structure and the personal property were abandoned; two officers testified the house appeared abandoned.
- Ingram requested a mistake-of-fact jury instruction directing acquittal if the jury found he reasonably but mistakenly believed the structure was not a habitation and/or the property was abandoned.
- The trial court refused the requested instruction; the jury convicted Ingram and assessed 36 years’ imprisonment and a $4,000 fine.
- The written judgment stated Ingram pleaded “true” to two enhancement paragraphs, although only one was alleged and admitted.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing a mistake-of-fact jury instruction based on Ingram’s asserted belief that the structure and/or property were abandoned.
2. Whether the judgment should be modified to reflect that Ingram pleaded “true” to only one enhancement paragraph.

## Decision

- The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the mistake-of-fact instruction.
- The court concluded Ingram’s asserted belief that the house or property was abandoned did not negate any culpable mental state required for burglary of a habitation.
- The court modified the judgment to reflect a plea of “true” to one enhancement paragraph.
- The conviction and sentence were affirmed as modified.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant is entitled to a mistake-of-fact instruction only when some evidence shows a reasonable mistaken belief that negates the culpability required for the charged offense.  
- For burglary of a habitation, the culpable mental state concerns the intent to commit a felony, theft, or assault upon entry; no culpable mental state is required as to whether the premises qualifies as a “habitation.”
- A belief that personal property is “abandoned,” when the defendant enters another’s real property without consent to take it, does not negate burglary’s required intent and may amount to an impermissible mistake-of-law theory.
- Appellate courts may reform a judgment to correct clerical errors so the written judgment accurately reflects the proceedings.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Ingram’s burglary-of-a-habitation conviction because his claimed belief that the house or property was abandoned did not negate the offense’s required intent, and it reformed the judgment to correct the enhancement-paragraph clerical error.


Ingram v. State, 261 S.W.3d 749 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2008)