SYLVESTER WILLIAMS, SR., 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.
The court held that the state failed to prove the necessary intent to traffic in or endeavor to traffic in stolen property for a conviction under section 812.019(1).
[1] A conviction for dealing in stolen property requires proof of intent to dispose of the property, not merely intent to personally consume it.
[2] Evidence of theft alone, coupled with an intent to personally use stolen items for consumption, supports a conviction for theft but not for dealing in stolen property.
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 intelligenceThe appellant purchased quantities of purportedly stolen alcohol and cigarettes from undercover officers, admitting he suspected they were stolen and …
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 Delivery Of Cocaine cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Judge.
The appellant contests his conviction and sentence for dealing in stolen property and for delivery of cocaine respectively under sections 812.019(1) and 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1989). Although the appellant raised four points on appeal, the only one we find to have merit is his contention that the state failed to prove the necessary intent to traffic in or to endeavor to traffic in stolen property. We agree.
The record reflects the appellant purchased quantities of purportedly stolen alcohol and cigarettes from undercover police officers on three separate occasions. The appellant testified that he purchased the items for other family members, for friends, and for himself and that he had consumed alcohol since the age of twelve. Law enforcement observed open liquor containers in the appellant’s home. The appellant also suspected the items were stolen due to their undervalued price.
The state presented no evidence that the appellant made any disposition of or intended to dispose of the cigarettes and alcohol other than to use them for personal consumption. The facts clearly support a conviction of theft under section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1989). However, the prosecutor chose not to charge the appellant with that offense. Instead, the appellant was charged with dealing in stolen property under section 812.019(1), Florida Statutes (1989). See Townsley v. State, 443 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Evidence of theft only, with the intent to personally put the stolen items to their normal use of consumption, constitutes only the crime of theft and not the crime of dealing in stolen property under the meaning of section 812. 019(1). Grimes v. State, 477 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Townsley, 443 So. 2d at 1073.
Therefore, while the appellant’s conviction for delivery of cocaine is affirmed, we reverse his conviction and sentence for dealing in stolen property under section 812.019(1), Florida Statutes (1989), and remand to the trial court for resentencing after preparation of a new scoresheet.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Camp, 596 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1992)…m of transfer, distribution, dispensation, or disposition of the item. Grimes v. State, 477 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (tendering stolen food stamps in exchange for food does not constitute dealing in stolen property); accord Williams v. State, 590 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (purchasing stolen alcohol and cigarettes for personal consumption does not constitute dealing in stolen property); Townsley v. State, 443 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (purchasing stolen Mercedes for personal use does not const…
-
F.C. v. State, 17 So. 3d 348 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…PER CURIAM. Based on B.B.P. v. State, 841 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), Williams v. State, 590 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), and the State’s concession of error, we summarily reverse F.C.’s conviction for trafficking in stolen property, direct dismissal of the delinquency petition, and order F.C.’s discharge. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.315(b). Reversed and…
-
Rodriguez v. State, 231 So. 3d 584 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…with the actual intent to use the herbicide on his own farm, his “intent to personally put the stolen items to their normal use of consumption,'constitutes only the crime of theft and not the crime of dealing in stolen property,” Williams v. State, 590 So. 2d 515, 516 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). The gravamen of section 812.019 is the prohibition against knowingly transferring stolen property to another. “The dealing in stolen property ‘statute was not designed to punish persons who steal for personal use. Rather it'…
Authorities Cited
- Lenora Feiler v. State, 443 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Grimes v. State, 477 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)