Texas burglary of a coin-operated machine — Penal Code § 30.03

Burglary of a coin-operated or coin collection machine under Texas Penal Code § 30.03 is breaking or entering a vending machine, meter, or similar coin device — without the owner’s consent — to obtain the property or services inside. Unlike § 30.02 burglary, it is a Class A misdemeanor, not a felony. Below: the statute, the elements, the controlling case law, and the defenses.

Peer Recognition

Martindale-Hubbell® 2026 Honors

Independent peer-review ratings recognizing legal ability and ethical standards.

Awards reflect peer-reviewed ratings only. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

The controlling statute — § 30.03

Section 30.03 sits inside the Texas burglary chapter, but it carves out a narrow, lower-grade offense: breaking or entering a coin machine to get at what is inside. It borrows burglary’s “entry” and “without effective consent” language while capping the punishment at a Class A misdemeanor. The full text is short, and every clause carries weight.

“(a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, he breaks or enters into any coin-operated machine, coin collection machine, or other coin-operated or coin collection receptacle, contrivance, apparatus, or equipment used for the purpose of providing lawful amusement, sales of goods, services, or other valuable things, or telecommunications with intent to obtain property or services. (b) For purposes of this section, ‘entry’ includes every kind of entry except one made with the effective consent of the owner. (c) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.” — Tex. Penal Code § 30.03

Chapter 30 is titled Burglary and Criminal Trespass. Where § 30.02 protects buildings and habitations, § 30.03 protects the coin-and-product interior of a machine — a vending machine, laundromat washer, arcade game, car wash, parking meter, toll box, or payphone. The verbs are “breaks or enters,” both governed by the broad definition of “entry” in subsection (b). The required mental state is narrow and specific: the entry must be made with intent to obtain property or services — the coins inside, or a free product or service from the machine. That object of intent is different from § 30.02, which requires an intent to commit a felony, theft, or assault. Get the machine open with intent to take the money, and the offense is complete whether or not any coins are actually removed.

What is a “coin-operated or coin collection machine”?

The statute’s category is not self-defining, and Texas courts take it seriously. A device is “coin-operated” only if depositing the coin makes the machine do something. A container that passively holds coins until a person empties it is a “coin collection receptacle” — a separate statutory term the State has to charge and prove correctly.

The leading case is Morris v. State, 928 S.W.2d 282 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996) [1]. The defendant broke into a parking-lot payment box and was convicted of burglary of a coin-operated machine. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals reversed and rendered an acquittal, holding that the box was not “coin-operated” at all: dropping money into its slots triggered no mechanical reaction — the collection lever was worked later by an employee, not by the coins. To be “coin-operated,” the court held, the deposit itself must cause the machine “to perform a function… react… or produce an effect or a change.” Because the Legislature in 1987 separately added the terms “coin collection receptacle” and “coin collection machine,” the court refused to read them as surplusage: a passive receptacle is a different object, and the State cannot prove one by showing the other.

That makes the device category an element, not a label. The machine must also be one used for “lawful amusement, sales of goods, services, or other valuable things, or telecommunications” — broad enough to reach vending machines, laundry machines, arcade and amusement games, car washes, parking meters, toll machines, and payphones. But the indictment has to match the proof. If the State alleges a coin-operated machine and the evidence shows a passive coin box, Morris says the evidence is insufficient.

Classification & punishment range

Section 30.03 is a flat Class A misdemeanor — the ceiling is one year in county jail and a $4,000 fine. There is no felony tier inside the statute. Only Texas’s general repeat-offender rule, § 12.43, changes the exposure, and even then the offense stays a Class A misdemeanor.

This is a deliberate contrast with the rest of the burglary and theft world. Burglary of a building or habitation under § 30.02 ranges from a state-jail felony to a first-degree felony, and theft under § 31.03 ladders upward by dollar value. Section 30.03 does neither: it does not matter whether the machine held $5 or $500 — the grade is fixed by subsection (c). The only thing that moves the needle is criminal history. Under § 12.43, a prior Class A misdemeanor or any felony sets a 90-day minimum, and a defendant with the right pattern of priors can face habitual-misdemeanor treatment — but the classification remains a Class A misdemeanor throughout.

Elements the State must prove

To convict under § 30.03, the State must prove four things beyond a reasonable doubt. Each is a place a defense can push — especially the “coin-operated machine” category and the “entry” that Texas courts require to be a genuine intrusion into the machine’s protected interior.

1. Without the effective consent of the owner

The entry must be unconsented. Subsection (b) makes “entry” every kind of entry except one made with the owner’s effective consent, so a route driver, vending-company employee, or anyone authorized to service or collect from the machine is a consent problem for the State.

2. Breaks or enters

“Breaking” needs only the slightest force — prying a panel, lifting a latch, opening a closed door — but it does need actual force [2]. “Enters” requires a real intrusion into the enclosed part of the machine: a “breaking of the close” into the interior [4]. Pushing an object connected to the body — a pry bar or tire tool — into the coin box is enough [3].

3. A qualifying coin-operated or coin collection machine

The device must be the statutory kind — one the coin actually operates, or a coin collection machine or receptacle — and the category the State charged must match the proof [1].

4. Intent to obtain property or services

The break or entry must be made in order to get money, product, or a free service from the machine. Intent is judged at the moment of entry, and the State does not have to prove anything was actually taken.

How Texas courts have interpreted § 30.03

Because so few people fight these misdemeanors on appeal, the reported § 30.03 decisions are older but stable — and several are defense wins. They police three things: whether the device really was “coin-operated,” what counts as a “breaking,” and when an “entry” is complete rather than merely attempted.

1. The State must prove the device was actually a “coin-operated machine.”

Morris v. State, 928 S.W.2d 282 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996) [1]. The defendant broke into a parking-lot payment box and was convicted of burglary of a coin-operated machine. The court reversed and ordered an acquittal, holding that the box was not “coin-operated”: depositing money triggered no mechanical response — the collection lever was activated later by an employee, not by the coins. To qualify, the court held, the deposit itself must cause the machine “to perform a function… react… or produce an effect or a change,” and because the 1987 Legislature separately added “coin collection receptacle” and “coin collection machine,” a passive receptacle is a distinct object. Why it matters: the precise device category is an element; when the charge alleges a coin-operated machine but the proof shows a passive coin box, the evidence is insufficient.

2. “Breaking” takes only slight force — but the offense needs no damage, and criminal mischief is not a lesser-included offense.

Sample v. State, 629 S.W.2d 86 (Tex. App. 1981) [2]. The court explained that the “breaking” element “implied actual force, but not such force as must have necessarily amounted to violence” — pushing open a closed door, lifting a latch, or raising a window is enough. In the same opinion it held that “break and enter” in § 30.03 “does not require proof to any degree that there was ‘damage or destruction’ of property,” so reckless damage / criminal mischief is not a lesser-included offense of the burglary. Why it matters: the point cuts both ways. The State needs very little to show a “breaking,” but it also cannot fall back on a criminal-mischief conviction as a lesser-included — a mismatch that produced the acquittal in Sample and that constrains the State’s charging options.

3. An “entry” is a genuine intrusion into the machine’s protected interior.

Griffin v. State, 815 S.W.2d 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) [4]. Griffin is the Court of Criminal Appeals’ controlling statement on what “entry” means across the burglary chapter. It arose under the vehicle statute — the Court held that pulling hubcaps and tires off the outside of a car is not burglary — but it announced the rule that governs § 30.03 as well: there must be a “breaking of the close,” an intrusion into “the interior or enclosed part of the described object,” and “enter” is interpreted consistently across §§ 30.02, 30.03, and 30.04. Why it matters: grabbing or prying at something on the outside of a machine is not an “entry.” The State must prove an intrusion into the machine’s enclosed interior — not merely contact with its shell.

4. Pushing a tool into the coin box completes the entry — even if the box never opens.

Shrader v. State, No. 03-08-00356-CR (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 10, 2009) [3]. The defendant argued the evidence showed only an attempted burglary because the State never proved he actually got the coin box open. The Austin Court of Appeals rejected that, applying Griffin’s consistency rule: under § 30.03(b) “entry” means every kind of entry except one made with the owner’s consent, “the physical intrusion of some part of the body is not required,” and entry is complete when “an object connected to the body intrudes into the protected premises.” Forcing a tire tool into the enclosed, locked coin box with intent to steal “broke the close.” Why it matters: the “it was only an attempt” defense fails once a tool has intruded into the machine’s interior — but it stays live where the proof shows only an exterior attack that never penetrated the enclosure.

§ 30.03 vs. § 30.02 burglary vs. theft

People often assume any break-in is “burglary.” Texas splits it up. Section 30.02 protects buildings and habitations; § 30.03 covers coin machines; and if there was no genuine entry, the conduct may really be theft or criminal mischief. The lane matters — the grades are worlds apart.

Burglary of a building or habitation (§ 30.02). Entering a building or habitation, without effective consent, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or assault. It is a felony — a state-jail felony for a building, and up to a first-degree felony for a habitation. It protects the sanctity of enclosed, private space. That is why it is graded so much higher than § 30.03.

Burglary of a coin machine (§ 30.03). A Class A misdemeanor that protects a machine’s coin-and-product interior, not a building. The Practice Commentary quoted in Love v. State, 744 S.W.2d 247 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987) [5], observes that calling this offense “burglary” is a misnomer, because a traditional burglarious entry into a coin machine is “an impossibility,” and “[t]he offense is really criminal mischief against a coin-operated machine.” That commentary helps explain both the misdemeanor grade and why the “entry” element gets litigated so hard.

Theft (§ 31.03) and criminal mischief (§ 28.03). If money or product is taken without breaking into or entering the machine’s interior — product pulled from an open display, or coins taken by someone who lawfully opened the machine — the right charge is theft, graded by value. If the machine is damaged but nothing is taken and there was no qualifying entry, the conduct may be criminal mischief. Prosecutors sometimes have a choice among these statutes, and because their grading rules differ so sharply, getting the charge into the correct lane is often the whole ballgame.

Defense strategies

Defending a § 30.03 case follows the elements. Because the offense is narrow, the strongest challenges attack the device category, the reality of an “entry,” consent, and intent — the exact points on which Texas appellate courts have reversed these convictions. Every case turns on its own facts; the theories below are drawn from the controlling law, not a promise about any result. See our criminal defense strategies overview.

• The device was not a “coin-operated machine” as charged. Under Morris, if the State charged a coin-operated machine but the proof shows a passive coin box or receptacle, the evidence fails on an element.
• No entry into the interior. Under Griffin and Shrader, an exterior attack that never intruded into the enclosed part of the machine is not a completed § 30.03 offense — at most an attempt, which carries a lower range.
• Consent or authorized access. Route drivers, vendors, and service personnel may have effective consent; subsection (b) excludes consented entries entirely.
• No intent to obtain property or services. Intent is measured at entry. Vandalism without an intent to take the contents may be criminal mischief, not § 30.03.
• Identity and attribution. These cases are often built on circumstantial evidence — pry marks, tools, surveillance. Mere possession of tools, or of a machine’s contents, does not automatically prove a burglarious entry.
• Charge placement and resolution. Because § 30.03 is already a misdemeanor, resolution often focuses on dismissal, a reduction to criminal mischief or a Class C offense, or a diversion or deferred-adjudication outcome — and on avoiding any enhancement exposure under § 12.43.

After an arrest in Collin, Dallas, Denton, or Tarrant County

A § 30.03 case runs the misdemeanor track: arrest, magistration where a magistrate sets bond and any conditions, then a charge filed by information in a county court at law rather than by grand-jury indictment. Where it lands depends on the county — and a Frisco arrest is a Collin County matter.

Collin County misdemeanors — including Frisco cases — are heard in the county courts at law at the Collin County courthouse in McKinney. Dallas County misdemeanors run through the county criminal courts at the Frank Crowley Courts Building. Denton County cases are heard at the Denton County courts, and Tarrant County prosecutions in the county criminal courts in Fort Worth. Because the offense is a Class A misdemeanor, the case proceeds on an information rather than an indictment, which usually means an earlier first setting than a felony would carry. L and L Law Group, PLLC defends coin-machine burglary and related property cases in all four counties from our Frisco office.