STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ANTHONY L. WORD, 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.
Florida appealed the dismissal of a burglary of a conveyance charge against Word for removing wheels and tires from a vehicle. The court held that removing parts of a conveyance constitutes an 'entry' under the burglary statute and reversed the trial court's dismissal.
Removing wheels and tires from a conveyance constitutes an 'entry' under Florida's burglary statute, and the theft of those removed items provides sufficient evidence of intent to commit an offense. Therefore, dismissal of the burglary charge was improper.
[1] Removing a portion of a conveyance, such as its wheels and tires, constitutes "entering" the conveyance for the purposes of burglary.
[2] The intent to commit an offense within a conveyance can be inferred from the theft of property removed from that conveyance.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“a 'conveyance' is defined as 'any motor vehicle, ship, vessel, railroad ear, trailer, aircraft, or sleeping car; and 'to enter a conveyance' includes taking apart any portion of the conveyance .... '”
Establishes the statutory definition that forms the basis for the court's holding that disassembly of parts constitutes entry.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWord was arrested for removing the wheels and tires from an automobile owned by Region Auto Sales. He was charged with both burglary of a conveyance a…
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 Intent To Commit An Offense Therein cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellee was charged by two-count information with burglary of a conveyance and grand theft resulting from his arrest for removing the wheels and tires of an automobile from a vehicle owned by Region Auto Sales. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the burglary charge arguing that the facts failed to constitute a prima facie case of burglary of a conveyance. The trial court agreed and dismissed the charge. Appellee thereafter pleaded nolo to the grand theft charge and was sentenced accordingly. On appeal, the-State contends that the trial court erred in dismissing the burglary of a conveyance charge. We agree and reverse.
Burglary is defined as “entering or remaining in a dwelling, a structure, or a conveyance with the intent to commit an offense therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the public or the defendant is licensed or invited to enter or remain.” § 810.02, Fla. Stat. (1995). A “conveyance” is defined as “any motor vehicle, ship, vessel, railroad ear, trailer, aircraft, or sleeping car; and ‘to enter a conveyance ’ includes taking apart any portion of the conveyance .... ” § 810.011(3), Fla. Stat. (1995) (emphasis supplied). Appellee does-not dispute that he participated in the disassembly and removal of the wheels and tires of the vehicle. He argues, however, that such act does not constitute the necessary “entry” requirement.
We disagree. It is clear from a plain reading of the language of the statute that by removing the wheels and tires of the automobile, appellee entered the vehicle by taking apart a portion of the conveyance. See Braswell v. State, 671 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Zipperer v. State, 481 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Appellee’s theft of the wheels and tires removed from the automobile supply sufficient evidence of his intent to commit an offense after entering the automobile by taking apart or removing the wheels and tires. To the extent that State v. Hankins, 376 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979) can be read to hold to the contrary, we are in conflict.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the burglary charge and remand for further proceedings.
BLUE and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Drew v. State, 773 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2000)…DCA 1979). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. At issue in this case is whether the act of removing hubcaps or tires from a vehicle in and of itself constitutes a burglary. The Second District in Drew (tires) and State v. Word, 711 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (tires) held that there was a burglary while the Fifth District in Hankins (hubcaps) held there was not. Based on the purpose and history of the offense of burglary at common law and our interpretation of the burglary statute, we…1 / 2
-
Jones v. State, 763 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…y of conveyance cases at that point, “involved the entry into a compartment of a vehicle which can be entered either wholly or partially by a person; e.g., engine and passenger compartments, trunks, etc.”1 The state relies heavily on State v. Word, 711 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). In that case the second district concluded that the mere removal of the wheels and tires of an automobile can constitute burglary of a conveyance, stating: It is clear from a plain reading of the language of the statute that by…
-
State v. Jones, 771 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 2000)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Jones v. State, 763 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), wherein the Fourth District certified direct conflict with the decision in State v. Word, 711 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. At issue in Jones is whether the removal of hubcaps and lug nuts from the wheels of a vehicle constitutes a burglary. We recently resolved this conflict in Drew v. State, 7…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Hankins, 376 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979)
- Braswell v. State, 671 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Sobel v. Goldman, 481 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)