STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ALFRED B. ROLLE, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Burglary Of A Structure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the charges of burglary of a structure and grand theft is reversed. Appellee was charged with unlawfully entering a structure “or the curtilage thereof.” His sworn motion to dismiss indicated that the truck under which Mr. Rolle was seen emerging “had been backed in through the garage door.” The officer’s testimony on which appellee also relied indicated that the truck went through a gate.
In DeGeorge v. State, 358 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), we held that the “curtilage” applied to commercial structures as well as that of a dwelling place. A person is guilty of burglary by entering or remaining in a structure which by definition includes its curtilage. § 810.011(1) and § 810.02(1), Fla.Stat. (1989). The evidence here makes out a prima facie case that appellee was on the curtilage of the commercial building. The question of his intent in being there is not a proper issue to be decided on a motion to dismiss uiider Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4). State v. Evans, 394 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.
GLICKSTEIN, DELL and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Hamilton, 660 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1995)…pport the enclosure requirement: This conclusion that proof of enclosure is necessary is also consistent with the facts of prior Florida cases upholding burglary convictions premised on the theory that the curtilage was entered. See State v. Rolle, 577 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (defendant’s truck went through gate and backed in through garage door); T.J.T. v. State, 460 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1984) (defendant attempted to remove window from home with fenced-in yard); Tobler v. State, 371 So. 2d 1043 (…
-
Bain v. State, 650 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…ssly sought in appellant’s initial brief. There was no proof that the defendant entered the school cafeteria nor any curtilage, the building not having been enclosed in any manner. Hamilton v. State, 645 So. 2d 555 (Fla.2d DCA 1994); State v. Rolle, 577 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); DeGeorge v. State, 358 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Fla.Std. Jury Inst. (Crim.) 135, 135-36.1 On remand, we caution the trial court against making the same errors when resen-tencing the defendant as it made when it origina…
-
Hamilton v. State, 645 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…vered by the burglary statute.6 This conclusion that proof of enclosure is necessary is also consistent with the facts of prior Florida cases upholding burglary convictions premised on the theory that the cur-tilage was entered. See State v. Rolle, 577 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (defendant’s truck went through gate and backed in through garage door); T.J.T. v. State, 460 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (defendant attempted to remove window from home with fenced-in yard); Tobler v. State, 371 So. 2d 1043 (F…
Authorities Cited
- Valentino DeGEORGE v. State, 358 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- State v. Evans, 394 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)