lived in the house for several weeks, and she no longer had any means of authorized access into the house. Indeed, the evidence reveals that the garage keypad cover was open but the garage door still closed and that the door to the house was forced open with the deadbolt still engaged. Although Mother had not directly told K.F. that she was no longer permitted to enter the house, she indirectly conveyed that message by changing the lock and garage keypad code, and K.F. apparently received that message when she attempted to enter the house but was unable to do so. Because the evidence presented is sufficient to show that KF.’s entry into her Mother’s home was unauthorized, we affirm KF.’s true finding for burglary. See, e.g., Fuller, 875 N.E.2d at 333-34; Jewell, 672 N.E.2d at 426-27 (<HOLDING>); Ellyson, 603 N.E.2d at 1373 (affirming
holding that wife had standing to seek disinterment where death of husband occurred prior to entry of decree of divorce holding that the evidence supported the conclusion that husbands entry into estranged wifes home was unauthorized where husband had moved out wife had changed locks and husband entered house through window after removing screen holding that alimony was justified where wife was homemaker with lesser job skills than husband wife had lesser earning capacity and husband was guilty of marital misconduct holding that property held by husband and wife in tenancy by entirety is exempt from attachment or execution for the sole debts of husband holding a wife liable for necessary medical expenses incurred by her husband under the doctrine even though the wife did not sign as a guarantor and did not request that her husband be admitted nor anticipate that her husband would be admitted