for statutory burglary requires a key element that was not required for a conviction of daytime housebreaking: Whereas burglaries in the first, second, and third degree require that the defendant both break and enter the dwelling or storehouse of another, daytime housebreaking required proof only of “breaking a dwelling house.” An entry into the structure has always been required for burglary, but not of daytime housebreaking. See, e.g., Hawkins v. State, 291 Md. 688, 692, 436 A.2d 900, 902 (1981) (finding that the crime of breaking and entering a dwelling house could not be a lesser included offense of daytime housebreaking because the former required both a breaking and entering whereas the latter only required a breaking); cf. Hebron v. State, 331 Md. 219, 627 A.2d 1029 (1993) (<HOLDING>); Brown v. State, 311 Md. 426, 535 A.2d 485
holding that the states evidence that defendant stole money from a purse after he entered the apartment was substantial evidence that he had the intent to commit larceny when he entered the apartment and finding no error in the trial courts failure to submit the lesserincluded offense of misdemeanor breaking and entering to the jury holding that reversal of a conviction of a nonexistent crime pursuant to a plea entered by the defendant was warranted recognizing common law grand larceny as separate and distinct from the statutory offense of breaking and entering with intent to steal holding that conviction for a crime that required breaking and entering also required the state to prove that defendant had actually entered the premises holding that it is the conduct required to obtain a conviction rather than the consequences resulting from the crime that is relevant