JOSEPH DAVID BROWN, 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.
Joseph Brown was charged with grand theft second degree for executing a scheme in a department store whereby he obtained store credit by falsely representing that he was returning merchandise, while also concealing a travel kit. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that store credit constitutes property subject to theft under Florida's omnibus theft statute, and that the attempted theft of multiple items in one transaction can constitute a single felony.
Store credit is property within the meaning of Florida's theft statute as it qualifies as 'intangible personal property, including rights, privileges, interests, and claims.' The attempted theft of multiple items (credit and travel kit) occurring at the same time and place can constitute a single theft, making it a felony grand larceny rather than two separate misdemeanors.
[1] Credit on a charge account constitutes property that may be the subject of theft under Florida's omnibus theft statute.
[2] Theft or attempted theft of multiple items at the same time and place can constitute a single theft offense.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“credit on a charge account is property which may be the subject of theft under Florida's omnibus theft statute, section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1979).”
Establishes the core holding that intangible store credit qualifies as 'property' subject to theft prosecution.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrown entered a department store where he had a charge account, gathered merchandise, concealed a travel kit valued at $25 on his person, removed pric…
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 Intangible Property cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final determination in a criminal case following the denial of a motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(e)(4).
Appellant, while in a department store where he had a charge account, gathered up several items of merchandise. He concealed one item (a travel kit valued at $25) on himself and removed the price tags on all of the other items except one, a pair of pajamas. He then approached a sales clerk, saying that he wished to purchase the pair of pajamas and inferring that he had previously purchased the other items (valued at $91) and was returning them to the store for credit on his account. After accomplishing this scheme, he exited the store with the concealed travel kit, was apprehended and charged with grand theft second degree (§ 812.014(2)(b), Fla.Stat. (1979)), the charging document alleging that appellant endeavored “to obtain or use merchandise, credit and U. S. currency, of a value of $100 or more.”
Appellant’s main contention is that his removal of merchandise from its original place in the store and its “return” to the possession of the store, did not constitute a theft and that, without the addition of its value ($91) to the value of the travel kit ($25), he could not be guilty of obtaining property of a value of $100 or more, as is necessary for grand theft. Appellant’s contentions present a question as to whether credit, as appellant endeavored to obtain by his artifice in this case, can constitute property which is the subject of theft. Section 812.012(3), Florida Statutes (1979), defines “property” as “anything of value,” includ ing “intangible personal property, including rights, privileges, interests, and claims.” We answer appellant’s question in the affirmative and hold that credit on a charge account is property which may be the subject of theft under Florida’s omnibus theft statute, section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1979).
Appellant also contends that, at most, the evidence establishes two misdemeanors of petit theft rather than one felony of grand larceny. Appellant’s argument is based on his assumption that the theft of the credit occurred and was completed before the theft of the travel kit occurred and that the theft of the travel kit did not occur until he left the store without paying for it. The crime of theft encompasses not only the completed theft but also the attempt to steal. § 812.014(1), Fla.Stat. (1979). Therefore, the theft or attempted theft of multiple items, such as the credit and travel kit, at the same time and place, can constitute one theft. See Hearn v. State, 55 So. 2d 559 (Fla.1955); Drakes v. State, 400 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). The determination as to whether there was one or two factual events is itself a question of fact for the jury.
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams Mgmt. Enters., Inc. v. Buonauro, 489 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…verter, 97 A.L.R. 251 (1935). . This must be contrasted with property that can be the subject of theft under Florida’s omnibus theft statute (§ 812.014, Fla.Stat.) which has been held to include credit on a store charge account. See Brown v. State, 414 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Judicial recovery of the converted property is not the object of the criminal trial of a theft case. . Intangible personal property means a mere legal right in or to property as distinguished from the property itself and includ…
-
S.P.S. v. State, 801 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…the facts of this case. The listed value of each of the telephone cards at issue was $99.99. Defendant stole seven of these and consequently committed the crime of grand theft. See Emshwiller v. State, 462 So. 2d 457 (Fla.1985). In Brown v. State, 414 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), the Fifth District Court of Appeal addressed the issue of whether credit can constitute property that is the subject of the theft. The facts of Brown are succinctly set out by the court: [Defendant], while in a department store…
-
Sanders v. State, 77 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…either temporarily or permanently ... [djeprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property.”); Colletti v. State, 74 So. 3d 497 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (“[Tjhere is no separate crime of attempted theft.”); Brown v. State, 414 So. 2d 15, 16 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (“The crime of theft encompasses not only the completed theft but also the attempt to steal.”). [*916] It is apparent that Sanders allegedly committed all of the elements of theft prior to the plane’s entering Florida’s terri…
Authorities Cited
- Hearn v. State, 55 So.2d 559 (Fla. 1951)
- Drakes v. State, 400 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)