The Iowa Court of Appeals recently affirmed the burglary conviction of Randal Ross Higgins, who was found guilty of third-degree burglary and third-degree theft. Higgins was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of fifteen and two years, respectively, after taking items from a brick building on a rural farmstead. This ruling impacts Higgins and sets a precedent regarding the definition of an 'occupied structure' in burglary cases.
The case, State of Iowa v. Randal Ross Higgins, was filed on August 19, 2026, under docket number 25-0447. The court's decision is significant as it clarifies the legal standards for what constitutes an occupied structure in Iowa law. The ruling also addresses the factors that can influence sentencing, particularly regarding a defendant's acceptance of responsibility.
Higgins was convicted after a jury trial that lasted four days. The prosecution presented evidence that he entered a brick building owned by Ann Kreager, where he took two wooden boxes, an Anderson Erickson milk crate, a terracotta pot, and a metal washtub. Kreager's property, which she has owned for over seventy years, still contained several outbuildings, including the brick building that had been used for storage and other activities. The case escalated when Kreager's son confronted Higgins and another man on the property, leading to a physical altercation and a police chase.
The State charged Higgins with second-degree robbery, third-degree burglary, and third-degree theft. After the jury found him guilty of the burglary and theft charges but acquitted him of robbery, he was sentenced as a habitual offender. The district court imposed concurrent indeterminate prison terms, which Higgins has since appealed.
In his appeal, Higgins raised two main arguments. First, he contended that there was insufficient evidence to support his burglary conviction because the State did not prove that the building was an 'occupied structure.' Second, he argued that the district court improperly considered his decision to go to trial instead of pleading guilty when determining his sentence.
The Iowa Court of Appeals reviewed the evidence presented during the trial and found substantial support for the jury's verdict. The court noted that the building was used for storage, which met the definition of an occupied structure under Iowa law. The court stated, 'Substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict that the building Higgins entered was “used for the storage . . . of anything of value.”'
Regarding the second argument, the court ruled that the district court did not improperly consider Higgins's decision to go to trial in its sentencing. The court explained that while a defendant's choice to plead not guilty cannot be a factor in sentencing, a lack of remorse or acceptance of responsibility can be considered. The court concluded that Higgins's comments and behavior indicated a failure to take responsibility for his actions, which justified the sentences imposed.
This ruling has implications for future cases involving burglary and theft in Iowa. It clarifies that a structure can be considered 'occupied' for legal purposes if it is used for storage, even if it is not secured. The decision also reinforces that a defendant's lack of remorse can influence sentencing decisions, provided it is based on evidence other than the defendant's choice to go to trial.
Looking ahead, Higgins's case may be appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court if he chooses to pursue further legal action. However, details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case may influence how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly concerning the definitions of occupied structures and the factors considered during sentencing.