Editor’s Note: Review granted. There was insufficient evidence of burglary where appellant removed the screen from the window of the victim’s home, but did not succeed in prying the window open. No part of appellant’s body was inside the premises, and appellant never penetrated the air space of the interior, only the space between the screen and the window. A jury instruction which defined entry as including where an object under the defendant’s control invades the space between the screen and window, was erroneously given. Appellant could only be guilty of attempted burglary as a matter of law, and reversal was therefore required with directions to reduce the conviction and resentence accordingly.