Mendoza appealed his conviction for felony child molestation under section 647.6, subdivision (b), because he contended that there was insufficient evidence that he entered an inhabited dwelling, which is required for a felony conviction under that section. Mendoza arged that he withdrew to the front porch of the house before molesting the minor, and therefore the crime was not residential. The appellate court rejected the argument, finding that the statute only requires that the offense occur after the entry into the residence. The crime was no less residential because Mendoza stepped out onto the porch. The court declined to “invent a loophole” which would allow perpetrators to lure children out of their dwellings in order to molest them.