## Facts

- Ronald Geriamane St. Julian was charged in two counts with burglary of a building with intent to commit theft under Tex. Penal Code § 30.02(a)(1).
- The charging theory alleged he entered, without effective consent, a building not then open to the public with intent to commit theft.
- The alleged entries involved an apartment-complex mailroom constructed of brick with a floor, ceiling, and four walls, containing mounted mailbox panels and other fixtures.
- The mailroom’s only entry was an open passageway/archway in one wall, allowing free access; a person could walk directly from the street into the mailroom.
- The mailroom was physically part of a larger two-story brick structure containing apartment units and a clubhouse area.
- After a bench trial, the court found St. Julian guilty on both counts, found enhancement allegations true, and assessed 20 years’ confinement on each count.
- The court of appeals affirmed, treating the mailroom as a “portion of a building” even if not itself a “building.”
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted discretionary review to decide whether the mailroom qualified as a “building” or “portion of a building” for § 30.02(a)(1).

## Issues

1. Whether an apartment-complex mailroom open to the outside through an archway is a “building” as defined by Tex. Penal Code § 30.01(2).
2. Whether such a mailroom can be a “portion of a building” under Tex. Penal Code § 30.02(a)(1) when the area itself lacks enclosure.
3. Whether the mailroom’s free public access is inconsistent with the statutory element requiring entry into a building or portion “not then open to the public.”

## Decision

- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the court of appeals.
- The court held the mailroom was neither a “building” nor a “portion of a building” under Tex. Penal Code §§ 30.01(2) and 30.02(a)(1).
- Because the evidence was legally insufficient to prove entry into a qualifying “building or any portion of a building,” the court ordered an acquittal on the burglary-of-a-building charges.

## Legal Principles

- Under Tex. Penal Code § 30.01(2), “building” requires an “enclosed structure”; an area substantially open to the outside is not a building.
- The phrase “building or any portion of a building” in § 30.02(a)(1) is constrained by the statutory definition of “building” and does not expand burglary to unenclosed spaces merely attached to a larger structure.
- A “portion of a building” must be an enclosed part of an enclosed structure; “portion” cannot be used to avoid the enclosure requirement.
- A space freely accessible from the street supports treating it as “open to the public” for purposes of analyzing § 30.02(a)(1)’s “not then open to the public” element in this setting.

## Conclusion

The court construed Texas’s burglary-of-a-building statute to reach only enclosed structures (and enclosed parts of such structures) and held that an apartment mailroom open to the public through an archway did not qualify, requiring reversal and acquittal for legal insufficiency on the charged burglary offenses.


St. Julian v. State, 874 S.W.2d 669 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994)