the requisite intent. The credibility of the evidence and whether in fact defendant did or did not possess the requisite intent is for the jury to decide. Id. Here, unlike in Barlowe, no conflicting evidence was offered as to defendant’s intent to commit a felony, in this case, first degree burglary, upon entering the home. “The intent to commit the felony must be present at the time of entrance, and this can but need not be inferred from the defendant’s subsequent actions.” State v. Montgomery, 341 N.C. 553, 566, 461 S.E.2d 732, 739 (1995). The State presented clear evidence of each element of the crime, including defendant’s intent, as evidenced by defendant’s subsequent actions in attempting to cash Charles Patterson’s check. See Montgomery, 341 N.C. at 568, 461 S.E.2d at 740 (<HOLDING>). As the State’s evidence was sufficient to
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 statements by defendant and apartment manager that defendant lived in the apartment where drugs were found demonstrated his control over the apartment even though no documents personal effects or keys were found holding that it was error to direct entry of a conviction for a permissive lesserincluded offense based on the fact that it was supported by the evidence because the greater crime was not charged in a manner that encompassed the intent element of the permissive lesserincluded offense and the jury did not make a finding regarding that intent element holding that conviction for a crime that required breaking and entering also required the state to prove that defendant had actually entered the premises recognizing common law grand larceny as separate and distinct from the statutory offense of breaking and entering with intent to steal