BERNARD IRVIN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Bernard Irvin appealed his conviction for attempted burglary of a conveyance, arguing that breaking a van window in broad daylight in a parking lot did not constitute acting "stealthily" as required by Florida law. The court affirmed, holding that the victim's absence from the vicinity when the defendant broke the window constituted sufficient evidence of stealthy conduct.
The court held that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the defendant acted stealthily. The court reasoned that stealth, in the context of the statute, means acting without the awareness of the victim or in a manner calculated to avoid discovery. Since the victim was not in the vicinity when the defendant broke the window, his conduct was stealthy.
[1] Proof of an attempt to enter a structure or conveyance stealthily and without consent is prima facie evidence of attempting to enter with intent to commit an offense.
[2] The term "stealthily" in the context of attempted burglary statutes can include acts calculated to avoid discovery, even if performed in daylight.
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“In a trial on the charge of attempted burglary, proof of the attempt to enter such structure or conveyance at any time stealthily and without the consent of the owner or occupant thereof is prima facie evidence of attempting to enter with intent to commit an offense.”
Statement of the statutory requirement that the defendant must act 'stealthily' for attempted burglary conviction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBernard Irvin broke a van window in a parking lot at Jackson Memorial Hospital in broad daylight. The victim had parked the van in the lot and was not…
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 Attempted Burglary Of A Conveyance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Bernard Irvin appeals his conviction of attempted burglary of a conveyance. We affirm.
At trial the State relied on section 810.07, Florida Statutes (1989), which provides in part, “In a trial on the charge of attempted burglary, proof of the attempt to enter such structure or conveyance at any time stealthily and without the consent of the owner or occupant thereof is prima facie evidence of attempting to enter with intent to commit an offense.” Id. § 810.07(2). Defendant contends that since he broke the victim’s van window in a parking lot in broad daylight, he did not act “stealthily” for purposes of the statute.1
While the statute does not define the term “stealthily,” the definition of “stealth” in Black’s Law Dictionary presents three alternatives:
The quality or condition of being secret or furtive. The act of stealing when the victim is unaware of the theft is stealing by stealth. Any secret, sly or clandestine act to avoid discovery and to gain entrance into or to remain within residence of another without permission. ...
Black’s Law Dictionary 1267 (5th ed. 1979).
The meaning which runs closest to the intent of the statute is definition . Here, the victim had parked the van in a parking lot at Jackson Memorial Hospital and was nowhere in the vicinity when the defendant broke the van’s window.2 There was evidence on which the jury could find that the defendant had acted stealthily. See Golden v. State, 497 So. 2d 914, 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).3
Affirmed.
. Defendant concedes that his conduct constituted criminal mischief.
. A security guard, alerted by a hospital employee who chanced to see defendant’s actions from a window overlooking the parking lot, apprehended defendant immediately after he broke the window.
.Likewise, if alternative is chosen, there was evidence that the defendant’s actions were calculated to avoid discovery. The parking lot was deserted; the van was parked at the edge of the parking lot next to a wall. Defendant looked into two of the van’s windows, then abruptly broke the window. At that point defendant weis apprehended by the security guard.