JIMMY WRIGHT, 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.
The court held that the record contained insufficient evidence of the defendant's specific criminal intent required for grand theft of a motor vehicle.
Police observed the defendant in a car matching a stolen vehicle BOLO, arrested him after finding a broken steering column, and the car's owner testif…
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 Grand Theft Of A Motor Vehicle cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jimmy Wright appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence for grand theft of a motor vehicle. For the following reasons, we reverse.
On June 24, 1991, Officer Neil and his partner were dispatched to a BOLO call in the northwest area of Miami. Officer Neil observed the Defendant inside a gray Nissan Sentra. The car fit the description given in the BOLO call he had received. The front door was open, and the Defendant was bending over inside the car. The Defendant then exited the car and entered a convenience store. The officers ran the car tag through the computer which indicated that the car had been reported stolen. When the Defendant came out of the store, the officers detained him to look inside the car. Officer Neil arrested the Defendant after he noticed that the car had a broken steering column. At trial, the car owner testified that she saw the person who stole her car, and it was not the Defendant. The jury found the Defendant guilty of grand theft of a motor vehicle.
The record contains insufficient evidence that the Defendant possessed the specific criminal intent required by section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1991). See State v. G. C., 572 So. 2d 1380 (Fla.1991) (juvenile, who accepted a ride in a car he knew was stolen, did not have the required intent to be convicted of grand theft); M.F. v. State, 562 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (evidence that juvenile was found sitting with his eyes closed in the driver’s seat of a car which had a' broken window and a broken steering column was insufficient to show guilt of grand theft). Accordingly, we reverse.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
T.S. v. State, 675 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…ar. Therefore, based on the record, we hold that there was insufficient evidence that appellant possessed the specific criminal intent required by section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1993), to sustain a conviction for auto theft. See Wright v. State, 616 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); M.F. v. State, 562 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). We therefore reverse the charge of auto theft with instructions that the trial court dismiss the charge against appellant. Affirmed in part; Reversed in part with instructions to…
Authorities Cited
- State v. G.C., 572 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 1991)
- M.F. v. State, 562 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)