JOE LOPEZ, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
Joe Lopez was convicted of breaking and entering a store building with intent to commit a felony based on an information that ambiguously alleged ownership of the property. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction because the information failed to clearly identify the actual owner of the store building that was broken and entered.
The conviction must be reversed because the allegation of ownership is insufficient. The information only alleges that Mutual Stores, Inc. owns the Independent Wholesale Grocery, not that it owns the store building that was broken and entered. The accurate name of the owner of the building broken and entered must be stated in the information.
“The name of the owner of the building which was broken and entered must be stated with accuracy.”
Establishes the core legal requirement for charging documents in breaking and entering cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLopez was charged with unlawfully and feloniously breaking and entering a store building identified as belonging to the Independent Wholesale Grocery …
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 Ownership Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
The conviction herein was upon an information which alleges that the defendant "did unlawfully and feloniously break and enter a store building to-wit: store building of the Independent Wholesale Grocery, Mulberry, Florida, which said Independent Wholesale Grocery is owned by Mutual Stores, Inc., with intent to commit a felony to-wit: "store building.”
The name of the owner of the building which was broken and entered must be stated with accuracy. Pells v. State, 20 Fla. 774; Davis v. State, 51 Fla. 37, 40 So. 179; Vicente v. State, 55 Fla. 197, 63 So. 423; Burnes v. State, 89 Fla. *362494, 104 So. 783; Davis v. State, 54 Fla. 34, 44 So. 757; Tilly v. State, 21 Fla. 242; Presley v. State, 61 Fla. 46, 54 So. 367; Smith vs. State, 96 Fla. 30, 117 So. 377; Dees v. State, 99 Fla. 1144, 128 So. 485; Kirtsinger vs. State, 99 Fla. 433, 126 So. 767; Leslie v. State, 35 Fla. 171, 17 So. 555.
The allegation as to ownership is “a store building of the Independent Wholesale Grocery, Mulberry, Florida, which said Independent Wholesale Grocery is owned by Mutual Stores, Inc.” Assuming that “Mutual Stores, Inc.” is a corporation, the allegation that the building broken and entered is a store building of the Independent Wholesale Grocery which said Independent Wholesale Grocery is owned by Mutual Stores, Inc., is merely an allegation that the Mutual Stores, Inc., owns the Independent Wholesale Grocery, no't the store building of the Independent Wholesale Grocery, and there is no allegation that the Independent Wholesale Grocery is a corporation. See Pells v. State, 20 Fla. 774. The allegation as to ownership of the store building- is insufficient to sustain a conviction that is challenged by writ of error.
Reversed.
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.
Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alvaro Alvarez v. State, 157 Fla. 254 (Fla. 1946)…ights. That allegations of ownership of property in cases charging breaking and entering and in cases charging grand larceny, are material allegations and constitute matters of substance is settled beyond question in this State. See Lopez v. State, 106 Fla. 361, 143 So. 303; Findley v. State, 124 Fla. 447, 168 So. 544; Byrd v. State, 146 Fla. 686, 1 So. (2nd) 623. In the Lopez case we held that the information must state the name of such owner with accuracy. It is also well settled that if an information…
-
I. v. Anderson, 356 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…. State, 99 Fla. 1144, 128 So. 485 (1930). The name of the “owner” of the burglarized structure or conveyance as thus defined must be sufficiently alleged in the indictment or information and proven as alleged without fatal variance. Lopez v. State, 106 Fla. 361, 143 So. 303 (1932); Addison v. State, 95 Fla. 737, 116 So. 629 (1928); Davis v. State, 51 Fla. 37, 40 So. 179 (1906); Pells v. State, 20 Fla. 774 (1884); State v. Ward, 354 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Mitchell v. State, 317 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 4th…
-
Haines v. State, 113 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)…of property are material and substantial matters and must be proved in order to support a con [*602] viction upon such charges. Alvarez v. State, 1946, 157 Fla. 254, 25 So. 2d 661; State v. Anders, Fla.1952, 59 So. 2d 776; and Lopez v. State, 1932, 106 Fla. 361, 143 So. 303. It inevitably follows that the cause should be reversed for a new trial. While this appeal was under study, the case having been assigned for consideration and determination by the court, it was discovered that the last four words of…
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 (11 total)
- Roy Smith alias Tom Green v. State, 96 Fla. 30 (Fla. 1928)
- Leslie v. State, 35 Fla. 171 (Fla. 1895)
- Davis v. State, 54 Fla. 34 (Fla. 1907)
- Harrison Thompson v. State, 66 Fla. 206 (Fla. 1913)
- Tilly v. State, 21 Fla. 242 (Fla. 1885)
- Burnes v. State, 89 Fla. 494 (Fla. 1925)
- Presley v. State, 61 Fla. 46 (Fla. 1911)
- Davis v. State, 51 Fla. 37 (Fla. 1906)
- Dees v. State, 99 Fla. 1144 (Fla. 1930)
- Pells v. State, 20 Fla. 774 (Fla. 1884)