ISIAH THOMAS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1995-05-10
No. 93-3745
HERSEY and POLEN, JJ., concur.
655 So. 2d 163 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1995) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Topics
Intent To Commit An Offense Therein Statutory Presumption Burglary Of A Dwelling Prima Facie Case

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Intent To Commit An Offense Therein cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
STEVENSON, Judge.

[*164] STEVENSON, Judge.

We affirm appellant’s conviction for burglary of a dwelling. We cannot agree that the defendant’s self-serving statements concerning his allegedly innocent reasons for breaking and entering into the victim’s home in the early hours of the morning are sufficient to impair the statutory presumption created by section 810.07, Florida Statutes (1989), precluding the case from going to the jury. Pui’suant to section 810.07, proof of entering stealthily and without consent is prima facie evidence of entering with the intent to commit an offense. The jury had the opportunity to evaluate the question of defendant’s intent or lack thereof to commit an offense based on all of the circumstances of the case. The jury obviously resolved that question adversely to the appellant. Finding no error, we affirm.

HERSEY and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • J. M. v. State, 884 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
    …tutes (2002), establishes that proof of stealthy entry is prima facie evidence of entering with intent to commit an offense. The statutory presumption is sufficient to create a prima facie case and avoid a judgment of acquittal. See Thomas v. State, 655 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (finding defendant’s self-serving statements for reason for breaking into home in early hours of morning did not negate statutory presumption so as to preclude submission of case to jury to evaluate defendant’s explanation along…
  • M.W. v. State, 201 So. 3d 729 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
    …at the gym. That testimony was not before the trial court when it ruled on the motion for judgment of dismissal at the close of the state’s case. In any event, the testimony did not overcome the statutory presumption of intent. See Thomas v. State, 655 So. 2d 163, 164 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (“We cannot agree that the defendant’s self-serving statements concerning his allegedly innocent reasons for breaking and entering into the victim’s home in the early hours of the morning are sufficient to impair the statuto…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw