Hard-Hitting Defense for Burglary Allegations
Accused of burglary under ARS §13-1506? A conviction can carry prison sentences up to life. Armour Legal investigates entry methods, intent to commit theft, and property boundaries to dismantle the prosecution’s case.
We reconstruct the scene, challenge property-owner statements, and file suppression motions to exclude unlawful evidence.
We defend residential and non‑residential burglary across degrees, including allegations tied to nighttime entry, weapon involvement, or occupied structures. Central to our approach is dismantling the inference of intent to commit a theft or felony inside—using lawful‑purpose evidence, permission/tenancy disputes, or mistake‑of‑address explanations.
We audit alarm logs, door sensors, and surveillance timestamps for gaps and misreads, and we push to reframe appropriate cases as criminal trespass with proportional restitution rather than felony burglary with life‑altering penalties.
Burglary in Arizona: Degrees, “Entry,” and Intent
Arizona’s burglary degrees turn on location (residential vs. non‑residential), time of day, and whether a weapon was involved. Crucially, the State must prove unauthorized entry and intent to commit a theft or felony inside. Intent is often inferred from circumstances, which we counter with lawful‑purpose evidence, mistake in address, or tenancy/permission disputes.
Evidence frequently includes alarm logs, door‑sensor data, and video. We cross‑check timestamps, question the chain of custody, and examine whether footage actually identifies a person or just a silhouette. When property damage is alleged, we challenge inflated estimates and the link between the damage and the accused.
Resolutions range from reduction to criminal trespass to diversion for qualifying defendants. Where custody is at issue, we present release plans and risk mitigation to avoid unnecessary detention.
Burglary (ARS §13-1506) combines unauthorized entry with intent to commit theft or another felony. Armour Legal reconstructs the incident scene, contests perimeter-sensor data, and undermines property-owner testimony by exposing contradictions.
We negotiate diversion or reduced property-damage charges by demonstrating lack of intent—especially in cases of mistaken entry or ambiguous tenancy. For habitual-offender charges, we press for alternative sentencing under Arizona’s restorative-justice provisions.
Intent at the moment of entry is the critical battleground. We use permission, tenancy, or mistake‑of‑address evidence to counter the inference of criminal purpose, and we challenge whether “entry” occurred at all when only a tool or partial body crossing is alleged. On proof, we scrutinize alarm logs and video timestamps for gaps or desynchronization and test eyewitness certainty where conditions were poor.
Our negotiation strategy targets charge reduction to criminal trespass or property‑damage counts where appropriate, aligning restitution to actual repair estimates rather than inflated figures. When detention is in play, we present structured release plans with employment verification, treatment where needed, and no‑contact or stay‑away commitments that satisfy judicial concerns.