R. E. S., A CHILD, AND H. A. T., JR., A CHILD, APPELLANTS,
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.
Two juveniles were convicted of burglary of an automobile for siphoning gasoline from cars. The court reversed, holding that siphoning gasoline from an automobile tank cannot constitute burglary because the offense does not involve entering a compartment of the vehicle that a person can physically enter.
Siphoning gasoline from an automobile does not constitute burglary. Burglary of an automobile requires entry into a compartment of the vehicle that can be entered wholly or partially by a person, such as engine compartments, passenger compartments, or trunks. Siphoning gasoline from a tank without such entry can at most constitute petit larceny.
[1] Siphoning gasoline from an automobile does not constitute burglary of a conveyance under Florida law.
[2] Burglary of a conveyance requires entering or remaining in a structure or conveyance with the intent to commit an offense therein, typically involving entry into a compar…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“entering or remaining in a structure or a conveyance with the intent to commit an offense therein”
The statutory definition of burglary that the court applied to determine whether siphoning gasoline qualifies
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants were apprehended while attempting to siphon gasoline from two cars. They were charged with burglary of a conveyance under Florida statute §…
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.
THOMPSON, Judge.
The appellants were charged with and convicted of burglary of an automobile. On .appeal, they contend that the act of siphoning gasoline from an automobile will not support a charge of or conviction for burglary, which is defined as “entering or re maining in a structure or a conveyance with the intent to commit an offense therein” § 810.02(1), Fla.Stat. We agree and reverse.
The appellants were apprehended as they attempted to siphon gasoline from two (2) cars. They were charged with burglary of a conveyance under § 810.02, Fla.Stat., and petit theft under § 812.014(2)(c), Fla.Stat. After the trial court denied their motions to dismiss the burglary charges, the appellants entered pleas of no contest to the burglary and petit theft charges. They specifically reserved the right to appeal the Order denying their motions to dismiss the burglary charges.
Our research has not revealed the existence of any Florida decision which has held that siphoning gasoline from an automobile constitutes burglary of an automobile. We recognize that there are cases upholding convictions for the burglary of automobiles. However, each of those cases involved the entry into a compartment of a vehicle which can be entered either wholly or partially by a person; e. g., engine and passenger compartments, trunks, etc. Cf. State v. Hankins, 376 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979) (where the court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of burglary charge against a defendant who had stolen automobile hubcaps.) A more analogous case is Kirkland v. State, 142 Fla. 73,194 So. 624, 625 (1940), where the Florida Supreme Court reversed a burglary conviction for siphoning gasoline out of a large gasoline storage tank. The court stated that The evidence showed that the offense, if any, was committed by drawing a few gallons of gasoline out of a storage tank.
The same offense would have been committed if the gasoline had been so drawout of an automobile gasoline tank.
The most that could have been warranted under the facts would have been a charge and conviction of petit larceny, (emphasis supplied)
We find Kirkland to be controlling in the present case, and therefore we reverse the trial court’s Order denying the appellants’ motions to dismiss the burglary charges pending against them.
LARRY G. SMITH, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Assoc. Judge (Ret.), concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Drew v. State, 773 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2000)…finition of “entering a conveyance” in Section 810.011(2) does not obviate the necessity for alleging facts in support of an intent to commit an offense therein. 376 So. 2d at 286 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Similarly, in R.E.S. v. State, 396 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), the court held that the sole act of siphoning gasoline from a car was not a burglary. There, the court reasoned that the cases upholding convictions for burglary of automobiles involved entry into a compartment of a vehicle whic…
-
Greger v. State, 458 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…978), and the proposition that the conveyance (boat) ends and does not include the attached outboard motor. We cannot agree with this restrictive view of defining the boat. The appellant’s actions sub judice were unlike the acts in R.E.S. v. State, 396 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), where the siphoning of gasoline was held to be non-entry or an entry with the intent not to commit an-offense therein because a gasoline tank was not a compartment of the vehicle which could be entered either wholly or partially…
-
Braswell v. State, 671 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…s said it did not appear that the cooler had been secured. We have found no Florida case which is directly on point; rather eases relating to burglaries of conveyances have been decided on whether an entry occurred. For example, in R.E.S. v. State, 396 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), this court concluded that siphoning gasoline from an automobile did not constitute burglary of a conveyance, because there was no entry. In State v. Hankins, 376 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979), the court determined that stealing…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Hankins, 376 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979)
- Junior Kirkland v. State, 142 Fla. 73 (Fla. 1940)