LUIS MORENO, 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 State presented sufficient evidence for the jury to determine the defendant possessed the requisite intent for petit theft, and the sentence was not erroneous.
The defendant was convicted of six counts of petit theft. He appealed, claiming he lacked the requisite intent and that his sentence was erroneous.…
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 Requisite Intent cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1027] PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Luis Moreno (the “defendant ’), appeals his conviction and sentence for six counts of petit theft, claiming that he lacked the requisite intent. We affirm.
Under Florida law, an individual commits theft if he knowingly obtains, uses, or attempts to obtain or to use, another’s property with the intent to temporarily or permanently (a) deprive the other person of the property or its benefit, or (b) take the property for his own use or the use of an unauthorized person. § 812.014(1), Fla.Stat. (1995).
Here, the State presented sufficient evidence for the jury to determine that the defendant possessed the requisite statutory intent to commit theft and, consequently, the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion for acquittal. See Rogers v. State, 660 So. 2d 237, 241 (Fla.1995) (motions of acquittal should only be granted when there is no view of the evidence which supports the party opposing the movant)(citing Taylor v. State, 583 So. 2d 323, 328 (Fla.1991)); Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44, 45 (Fla.1974) (where reasonable people can differ on the question of intent, the determination of intent is properly left to the jury).
Regarding the alleged error in the defendant’s sentence, Section 948.15(1), Florida Statutes (1995), states that a defendant convicted of a second degree misdemeanor may receive up to a six month probationary period. The trial court, therefore, did not err in sentencing the defendant to incarceration and six months of probation. See Merrett v. State, 670 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Accordingly, the defendant’s sentence and conviction are affirmed in all respects.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kohr v. State, 993 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…of felony criminal mischief and sentencing Kohr to five years of probation for that count. We note that the maximum probation period for count III, a second degree misdemeanor, is six months. § 948.15(1), Fla. Stat. (2005). See also Moreno v. State, 675 So. 2d 1026, 1027 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). We reverse and remand for the trial court to correct Kohr’s judgment of conviction and sentence accordingly. As to Kohr’s remaining arguments, we affirm without discussion. Reversed and Remanded. POLEN and KLEIN, JJ., co…
Authorities Cited
- Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1974)
- Taylor v. State, 583 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 1991)
- Rogers v. State, 660 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1995)
- Edilberto O. Marban, Esq. v. Arias, 670 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)