of “enclosed area” for purposes of the burglary statute, the court of criminal appeals held that a structure made of concrete blocks with three doorways that were incapable of being closed was not an “enclosed area.” See Day v. State, 534 S.W.2d 681, 684-85 (Tex.Crim.App.1976) (“To hold that a structure of the design shown here is a building within the definition in Sec. 30.01, ... would expand the scope of structures which may be the object of burglary to include open air stages with three walls and a roof, or open carports with walls on both sides but none on the ends, or even four-columned pavilions with no walls. The structure here is no more an enclosed structure than the examples just listed.”); see also Hudson v. State, 737 S.W.2d 838, 839-40 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). Here, like the building in Day, the RV
holding that the competitive area of golf course used for us open did constitute a place of public accommodation holding a crime committed under a nebraska statute criminalizing sexual contact between an adult and a minor a felony crime of violence for sentencing purposes holding that dual convictions for solicitation of a minor and traveling to meet the minor do not violate double jeopardy because sections 84701353 and 4 reflect a clear legislative intent to punish the offenses separately holding that open walkway between two buildings was not enclosed area for purposes of solicitation of a minor statute holding that defendants affirmative acts of driving minor to robbery helping minor enter the building and serving as a lookout for the minor warranted sentencing enhancement