He was charged with and pleaded guilty to "burglary of conveyance".
Since the article didn't specifically "quote" the sheriff, if the "conveyance" happened to be a "home", what I meant to say was, perhaps the journalist(s) that wrote the article took "burglary" of a "home" and chose to use "home invasion" instead.
Nevertheless, the online court record doesn't specify what was actually burglarized. The forgery is in the same document. It also indicates at the time this happened he was on probation.
http://oncoreweb.srccol.com/oncoreweb/showdetails.aspx?id=9638174&rn=3&pi=0&ref=search
Since the forgery can be documented and it doesn't specify what was forged, simply forgery and uttering a forged instrument, could back up what I was told years ago, that he'd stolen some checks from his parents, cashed them and was caught.
But with him who knows, from what I've seen record wise, versus what I was told, seems like a whole lotta down playing was done to save his face.