R.C., A CHILD, 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.
R.C., a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent for grand theft after taking a bicycle from J.T. King's apartment patio without permission. The court affirmed, holding that King's custody and control of the bicycle constituted sufficient 'ownership' under Florida theft law even though he did not own the bicycle.
The court held that 'ownership' in the theft statute means any possession that is rightful as against the thief, and is satisfied by proof of temporary possession, control, or custodial interest in property. King's custody and control of the bicycle was sufficient 'ownership' to support the theft conviction because he was aware of it, intended to return it, and took affirmative action to protect it.
[1] Ownership for the purposes of a theft conviction is satisfied by proof of temporary possession or control of the property, or a custodial interest in it, as against the t…
[2] A person's custodial interest in property, including the intent to return it to its rightful owner and taking affirmative steps to protect it, can constitute sufficient "…
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“Ownership must be alleged and proved to support a conviction for theft, State v. Anders, 59 So.2d 776, 777 (Fla.1952), but absolute ownership is not essential.”
Establishes the legal standard that ownership is required but need not be absolute title
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn September 20, 1984, J.T. King found a girl's 10-speed bicycle on his apartment patio in a common area where children played. King intended to retur…
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 Theft Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
R.C. appeals from an adjudication of delinquency and commitment to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services following a petition charging him with grand theft. We affirm.
On 20 September 1984, J.T. King discovered a girl’s 10-speed bicycle on his apartment patio. The patio abutted a common area of the apartment complex where children often played and left their belongings. King intended to turn the bike in to the apartment manager on the following Saturday, 22 September. On that day, R.C. was at King’s apartment watching television. When he was ready to leave, he asked King if he could ride the bike home. King told him that he could not give his permission because the bike was not his and emphatically told R.C. not to touch it. R.C. left the apartment and returned on the bike an hour later, accompanied by an officer who had stopped him after seeing that the bike was a girl’s style. Although King told the police that the bike was not his and that he did not know to whom it belonged, a petition for delinquency was filed charging R.C. with grand theft and describing the bike as King’s property.
After a hearing on the petition, R.C. moved for judgment of acquittal. He alleged that because King denied owning the bike and no other owner had been brought forward, the State had failed to prove that the bike was the “property of another” as required by the theft statute, Section 812.-014(1), Florida Statutes (1983). The motion was denied. R.C. was adjudicated delinquent and committed to HRS.
Ownership must be alleged and proved to support a conviction for theft, State v. Anders, 59 So. 2d 776, 777 (Fla.1952), but absolute ownership is not essential. “Ownership” in this context is a term of art meaning any possession which is rightful as against the thief. It is satisfied by proof of temporary possession or control of the property, Anderson v. State, 356 So. 2d 382, 384-5 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), or by proof of a custodial interest in it, Simkovitz v. State, 340 So. 2d 959, 961 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). Here, the bicycle was on King’s patio. He was aware of its presence, intended to return it, and took affirmative action to protect it against R.C.’s use. Therefore, the trial court was correct in its conclusion that King’s custody and control of the bicycle was “ownership” sufficient to support a theft conviction.
AFFIRMED.
SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Foster v. State, 557 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…n was not the property of Clara Suarez. We agree. To convict an individual of grand theft pursuant to section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1987), the state must prove the ownership of the stolen property in one other than the defendant. R.C. v. State, 481 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); see also C.B. v. State, 519 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); A.L. v. State, 359 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Wilcox v. State, 183 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Nelson v. State, 453 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); O’Bryan v. Stat…
-
D.S.S. v. State, 850 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 2003)…ed by proof of special or temporary ownership, possession, or control.” Id. at 797. This is true regarding the ownership ele [*462] ment in criminal mischief and theft as well. See Duncan v. State, 29 Fla. 439, 10 So. 815, 816 (1892); R.C. v. State, 481 So. 2d 14, 15 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Here, the State presented sufficient evidence to establish the ownership element as it is defined in In re M.E. Throughout the trial, the building was referred to as Plant City High School. An officer testified that the sch…
-
T.A. v. State, 553 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…ed documents, the state proved the required elements of theft under section 812.014, Florida Statutes is true that ownership must be alleged and proven to support a conviction for theft, State v. Anders, 59 So. 2d 776, 777 (Fla.1952); R.C. v. State, 481 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), proof of absolute ownership is not essential. “Ownership” in this context is a term of art meaning any possession which is rightful as against the thief. It is satisfied by proof of temporary possession or control of the proper…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Anders, 59 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 1952)
- I. v. Anderson, 356 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Simkovitz v. State, 340 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)