A relative of mine was involved in the burgulary of a bldg by a group. He was convicted of the offense. Different attorney than the others. claims innocense, It has something to do with 'going there with the intent to steal', and for the purpose of 'selling' afterward. He says he did neither, and did not know what they were up to and had nothing to do with attempting to sell anythiing. Does that matter at all? I think it got all mixed up with pretrial diversion, then deferred something or other, and went down the wrong path , finally to pleading guilty somehow because of previous agreements. It sounds complicated.
The police report (not the one he signed) refers to intent to steal, and 'itent to sell'.. His own statement backs up what he says now. I read them.