HENRY STEPNEY, 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.
Henry Stepney was convicted of burglary of an occupied structure and petit theft after taking toilet paper from a fenced yard. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the burglary conviction because the prosecution failed to present evidence that a structure as legally defined existed on the property, but affirmed the theft conviction.
The burglary conviction must be vacated because the prosecution failed to present any evidence that a structure, as defined by Florida Statutes section 810.011(1), existed on the property. The case is remanded for the trial court to reduce the burglary conviction to trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance and impose appropriate sentencing accordingly. The petit theft conviction is affirmed.
[1] A conviction for burglary of an occupied structure requires proof that a structure, as defined by statute, was present on the property.
[2] A conviction for burglary of an occupied structure cannot stand when the prosecution fails to present evidence proving the existence of a structure as statutorily defined…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“An exhaustive examination of the trial transcript, filed with the record in this case, reveals a total absence of any testimony that would indicate, let alone prove, that there was a structure as defined above, located within the fence of the property in question”
Establishes the critical deficiency in the prosecution's evidence—no testimony supported the existence of a structure required for the burglary charge.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStepney walked through an open gate in a fence surrounding a company-owned yard, picked up a plastic bag containing toilet paper rolls, and walked out…
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 Trespass On Property Other Than A Structure Or Conveyance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant walked _ onto a parcel of property that had a fence around it •with an open gate where trucks can enter. The defendant walked through the gate and picked up a plastic bag that contained several rolls of toilet paper. Thereafter, after being noticed by several employees of the company that owned the yard, the defendant dropped the bag and walked out of the gate. The defendant was then apprehended and detained by a security guard employed by the company that owned the yard.
The defendant was charged by an Information with the offenses of Burglary of an Occupied Structure and Petit Theft. The case proceeded to jury trial and the jury found the defendant guilty of the offenses charged. The trial court adjudicated the defendant guilty and sentenced the defendant to 40 years in the state prison in connection with the charge of Burglary of an Occupied Structure.1
Section 810.011(1) of the Florida Statutes defines “structure” as meaning:
... a budding of any kind, either temporary or permanent, which has a roof over it, together with the curtilage thereof.
An exhaustive examination of the trial transcript, filed with the record in this case, reveals a total absence of any testimony that would indicate, let alone prove, that there was a structure as defined above, located within the fence of the property in question
Accordingly, while the jury in this case was presented with substantial competent evidence to support the charge of Petit Theft, the prosecution’s ease did not contain a similar quantum of evidence with regard to the charge of Burglary of an Occupied Structure. Consequently, the conviction and sentence entered in connection with the Burglary of an Occupied Structure must be vacated. Furthermore, we remand this case with directions to the trial court to reduce the Burglary of an Occupied Structure conviction to a conviction for Trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance, in violation of Subparagraph 810.09(l)(a)l, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996). In connection therewith, the defendant shall be sentenced accordingly.
Reversed.
. The court suspended the entry of the sentence in connection with the Petit Theft charge.
. The record reflects that the owner of the property in question also owns another large fenced-in parcel of property, containing one or more structures, directly across the street from the property in question. It appears to be undisputed that the two parcels of property are separate and distinct from each other and, in fact, are completely separated by a public road that runs between them.