My point was he was arrested on suspicion of that and ended up being convicted of this.
Right, that's what I said.
I also pointed out that it's not entirely clear that the thing he was arrested for and the thing he was convicted of are different things. That writer omitted the "with sexual motivation" from the thing he was convicted of isn't clear evidence to me that he wasn't convicted of "residential burglary with sexual motivation", though it's also not clear that he was.