## Facts

- Ninety-year-old Herman Bode heard a knock at his window at his Jensen Beach home and saw Michael Schrack outside.
- Schrack claimed Bode’s former daughter-in-law “Donna” sent him regarding a surprise anniversary cookout; Bode allowed Schrack into the house.
- After a short conversation, Bode went to the kitchen to call Donna; Schrack followed.
- Schrack struck Bode on the head with a metal pot, announced a holdup, and demanded money.
- Bode gave Schrack about $100; Schrack demanded the location of a safe, searched the home, and continued threatening Bode.
- During a struggle, Schrack cut Bode’s hand with a knife and threatened to kill him.
- Bode escaped outside and obtained help from a neighbor who called police.
- Schrack fled in Bode’s car, crashed, ran from the vehicle, swam into the ocean, and was apprehended.
- A jury convicted Schrack on multiple counts, including burglary of a dwelling with assault or battery; he appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of burglary because the initial entry was consensual.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence supports burglary of a dwelling with assault or battery when the defendant initially entered with the occupant’s consent obtained through deception but then committed robbery and violence inside the home.

## Decision

- The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment and sentence, including the burglary conviction.
- The court held that even if initial entry was consensual, the evidence supported burglary under the “remaining in” portion of Florida’s burglary statute once Schrack revealed his criminal purpose and continued to stay inside to commit offenses.

## Legal Principles

- Florida burglary includes “entering or remaining in” a dwelling with intent to commit an offense therein; an initially lawful entry does not bar burglary liability.
- Consent to remain may be treated as withdrawn (at least implicitly) when the occupant is subjected to violence or threats and the defendant’s criminal purpose is revealed.
- A burglary conviction may rest on proof that the defendant, after lawful entry, remained in the dwelling without authorization while forming and carrying out an intent to commit crimes inside (including theft and assault).

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Schrack’s burglary conviction because the jury could find that any consent to his presence ended when he attacked and robbed the elderly homeowner, and that he then remained in the home to commit additional offenses, satisfying Florida’s “remaining in” burglary theory.


Schrack v. State, 793 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2001)