I am drafting a case brief. I have several questions, and the case brief is below. Please critique.

1. Is the "holding" the actual "issues"? In this case, there were two sets of holdings. I combined them all. Is this correct?

2. The burglary, West Law, mentions "personal safety." How do you write this? Is the "Policy" implied?

3.Under what heading do you place the arguments/contentions of the plaintiff and defendants?

4. Is this case brief too lengthy?

GILES v COMMONWEALTH of Virginia

277 Va. 369

FACTS

Oscar Thornton, Jr. (Thornton) acquired a house from his mother in Martinsville, Virginia, who died on June 28, 2005. Thornton lived in Baltimore, Maryland, and visited the home in Martinsville at least once or twice per month. Oscar stayed at his deceased mother's home the whole weekend ofSeptember 17, 2005. Thornton's mom furnished the entire house. However, Oscar supplied running and working utility services and food to the pantry, cabinets, and refrigerator to maintain it for habitation. Oscar Thornton, Jr. Had asleeping room within the house. Thornton did not spend every night in the home, handed down to him by his mother because he dwells in Maryland. But Oscar planned to return to his home in Virginia regularlyand periodically.

On September 28, 2005, Christopher Lee Giles engaged in housebreaking the house in Martinsville, Virginia, now owned by Oscar Thornton, Jr., who was not in town on the burglary. The event occurred at night.

Giles stole food, guilts, blankets, sheets, towels, bathroom supplies, two televisions, and a video cassette recorder from the house. Giles' participation in the break-in is not in dispute.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Incident took place in the state of Virginia

Circuit Court of Virginia-Christopher Lee GILES, plaintiff, convicted of burglary in a bench trial in Circuit Court of Virginia in violation of code 18.2-89 for 20 years of incarceration, with 13 years andeight months postponed. GILES appealed. He states COMMONWEALTH failed to establish a prima facie case. Also, GILES argued that the defendantdid not prove the home was a "dwelling house,"an essential element of code 18.2-89 because no one occupied the home for regular sleeping.

Court of Appeal of Virginia-GILES appealed. He arguesthat Commonwealth unsuccessfully established Thornton's home as a "dwelling house," as a vitalcomponent of code 18.2-89 becausehe nor anyone else lived there at the time. The house was not occupied and used for sleeping regularly.

Supreme Court of Virginia-GILES appealed. He contends that the Court of Appeals made a mistake in allowing the circuit court's ruling that the home met the "dwelling house" requirement for code 18.2-89. The Court of Appeals did not make a mistake toconfirm the Circuit Court ruling that the house satisfied the "dwelling house" element. The Supreme Courtendorsed and reaffirmed the Court of Appeal's judgment/decision for burglary conviction of the Circuit Court.

Supreme Court of Virginia issued the judicial opinion

LEGAL ISSUE

Whether a house is a "dwelling house" according to code 18.2-89 and considered a living quarter such as a home to be a "dwelling house" under code 18.2-89 when the house used for living includes periodic habitation?

Whether periodic habitation does not demand the house usage be at regular intervals?

Whether periodic habitation commands home usage for residence?

Whether a "dwelling house" is a home for residual living, as opposed to another purpose?

Whether the owner's house habitation satisfy the "dwelling house" guidelines for burglary statute?

STATEMENT OF RULE

The Supreme Court of Virginia states they provided GILES with an appeal because a person can have multiple dwelling houses if a "human" slept in the places and undertakes other habitation functions. Suppose an occupant of a home keeps it "for immediate or fast habitation" in absence periods and intends toreturn home within a usual or cyclic period. In that case, the house is under "code 18.2-89. "Giles v Commonwealth, 51, Va. App. 449, 458-59, 658 S.E.2d 703, 708 (2008)."

There is no frequency stipulation in the burglary statute, and a structure does not have to live physically in every day, week, or month to be a dwelling house within the meaning of burglary statute V.C.A. 18.2-89.

POLICY

NOT SURE-IMPLIED- SAFETY(PERSONAL).... Should I include information here?

REASONING/APPLICATION/ANALYSIS

There is evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, benefiting from reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence. "Britt v Commonwealth, 276 Va. 569, 573, 667 S.E.2d 763, 765 (2008.); Jay v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 510, 524, 659 S.E. 2d 311, 319 (2008.); Bolden v. Commonwealth 275 Va. 144, 148, 654 S.E.2d 584, 586, (2008)."

Burglary laws recognize dangers to personal safety created by a break-in situation-the pitfalls that intruders will hurt occupants attempting to commit deliberate crimes or to get away. The situation could cause the occupant(s) to become angry or panic and react violently to the invasion provoking fury. "Yeatts, 242 Va. at 140, 410 S.E.2d at 266 (quoting Rash v Commonwealth 9 Va. App. 22, 25, 383 S.E.2d 749, 751 (1989)."

HOLDING

A house is a "dwelling house" according to code 18.2-89 when used the home for habitation, particularly periodic occupancy. It does not demand home usage for regular times. Instead, occasional residence requires lodgingwhen the house is in use.