JOE LOUIS PATTERSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a directed verdict of acquittal because the motion was insufficient and the evidence of ownership was adequate.
Appellant was convicted of burglary. At trial, the defense moved for a directed verdict of acquittal, arguing insufficient evidence of ownership. This…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Directed Verdict Of Acquittal cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
Appellant, convicted by a jury of burglary of a structure, contends that the trial court erred in not granting a directed verdict of acquittal made at the close of the State’s case and renewed at the close of the defense case. The evidence of ownership is alleged to be insufficient. We affirm.
The motion for directed verdict of acquittal was based on the ground that “the State has not presented a sufficient amount of evidence so as to constitute a prima facie case....” The specific ownership issue is presented for the first time on appeal. This motion is insufficient because it does not fully set forth the ground on which it is based. Rule 3.380(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure; G. W. B. v. State, 340 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). A bare bones motion for directed verdict will not permit a defendant to raise every possible claimed insufficiency in the evidence. De La Cova v. State, 355 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 361 So. 2d 831 (Fla.1978).
Even if it could be asserted that the motion was proper, the evidence below was sufficient to prove ownership for the purpose of charging burglary. The allegations of ownership in the information can be supported by proof of possession which is rightful against the burglar, and may consist of a special or temporary ownership, possession or control in the person alleged to be the owner. In the Interest of M. E., 370 So. 2d 795 (Fla.1979). The evidence here adequately supports the allegations of ownership in the victim.
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH, C. J., and SHARP, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Stephens v. State, 787 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 2001)…ed because counsel failed to object with specificity); Marquard v. State, 641 So. 2d 54 (Fla.1994) (finding a particular argument not preserved as to the trial court’s denial of motion for judgment of acquittal on murder charge); Patterson v. State, 391 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (holding a bare bones motion for directed verdict will not permit a defendant to raise every possible claimed insufficiency in the evidence); De La Cova v. State, 355 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (finding a bare bones motion fo…
-
Hardwick v. State, 630 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…in the defendant’s perfunctory motions for judgment of acquittal.1 The state is correct that these “bare bones” motions will not allow a defendant to raise every possible claimed insufficiency in the evidence on appeal. See e.g., Patterson v. State, 391 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Second, the defendant, in moving for a judgment of acquittal, admits not only the facts stated and evidence adduced but also every conclusion favorable to the state that a jury might reasonably infer from the evidence. The cour…
-
Ulysses Jones v. State, 415 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…urglary. Ownership, for this purpose, means any possession which is rightful against the burglar and is satisfied by proof of special or temporary ownership, possession or control. In Interest of M. E., 370 So. 2d 795 (Fla.1979); Patterson v. State, 391 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Adirim v. State, 350 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). We have considered appellant’s final point and find it to be without merit. The judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED. FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., J., concurs. COWART, J., disse…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In the Interest of M. E., 370 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 1979)
- G. W. B. v. State, 340 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- DE LA Cova v. State, 355 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)