of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion, which raised several claims. We affirm and write to specify that the affirmance of the denial of one of the claims is without prejudice. Moore entered a negotiated, no contest plea to several offenses, including two counts of burglary of a dwelling. The factual basis for the plea explained that Moore stole “air-conditioning units” from two homes under construction. Moore claims that his plea was involuntary because the factual basis does not support the burglary of a dwelling charges. This claim is properly raised in a 3.850 motion. Franklin v. State, 645 So.2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Moore argues that the houses did not qualify as dwellings because they were under construction. See Perkins v. State, 682 So.2d 1083 (Fla.1996)(<HOLDING>). Moore does not specify how the homes did not
holding that the evidence was sufficient to preclude inference where he tried to enter the house drunk and was staying at the neighboring house holding that rooming house residents had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the front hallway of the house they shared which was not obviously a rooming house open to the general public holding that an unoccupied house is afforded the same protection under section 8100112 as an occupied house holding that home includes adjacent garage and noting that at common law dwelling house included the privy barn stable cow house and dairy house if they are part of the same parcel although they are not under the same roof or contiguous to it holding that defendant staying in abandoned house had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the house despite having a key to the house and the ability to let people in and out of it