DAVID ROSSI, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Appellant's grand theft conviction was reversed due to insufficient evidence linking the vehicle in his possession to the stolen vehicle, and his probation revocation was remanded for reconsideration.
To convict a defendant of grand theft of a motor vehicle, the state must present evidence that the vehicle in the defendant's possession is the specific vehicle identified by the victim as stolen, not merely a vehicle of the same make and color.
[1] Grand theft of a motor vehicle requires evidence that the vehicle in the defendant's possession is the specific vehicle identified by the victim as stolen, not merely a v…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was charged with grand theft of a motor vehicle. The only evidence connecting the vehicle found in Appellant's possession to the victim's st…
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.
We sua sponte consolidate these appeals. As to the substantive offense in ease number 97-2821, we reverse and direct that Appellant be discharged on remand. The record reflects that there simply was no evidence tying the vehicle found in Appellant’s possession to the vehicle that was stolen from the victim, other than each being a green Buick. To convict Appellant of grand theft of a motor vehicle, the state was required to present evidence that the vehicle, in Appellant’s possession was the vehicle identified by the victim as stolen. See Coyle v. State, 493 So. 2d 550, 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Foster v. State, 557 So. 2d 634, 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); J.E.P. v. State, 561 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); C.O. v. State, 557 So. 2d 637, 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
In case number 97-2843, the trial court revoked Appellant’s probation based, in part, on his conviction of grand theft. In light of the reversal on the substantive offense, we reverse and remand for reconsideration of Appellant’s revocation of probation and sentence. On remand, the trial court may still decide to revoke Appellant’s probation based on evidence of his “technical” violations.
STONE, C.J., TAYLOR, J., and GLICKSTEIN, HUGH S., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Junior Maxine Joseph v. State, 956 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…uto under section 812.014, Florida Statutes (2005).1 To convict a person of grand theft auto, the State is required to present evidence that the vehicle in possession of that person was the vehicle identified by the victim as stolen. Rossi v. State, 717 So. 2d 611, 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). We find that the State presented insufficient evidence to prove the vehicle Joseph was apprehended in was the same one reported stolen by Hernandez. The State failed to meet its burden under State v. Law, supra, since Herna…
-
Goad v. State, 887 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…llo’s lawn mower. To prove the theft charge under section 812.014, Florida Statutes (2003), the State was required to prove that Goad knowingly obtained or used, or endeavored to obtain or use, the property of Santiago Carballo. In Rossi v. State, 717 So. 2d 611, 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), the court stated that “[t]o convict Appellant of grand theft of a motor vehicle, the state was required to present evidence that the vehicle in Appellant’s possession was the vehicle identified by the victim as stolen.” See…
-
V.G. v. State, 224 So. 3d 795 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…rson of grand theft auto, the State is required to present evidence that the vehicle in possession of that person was the vehicle identified by the victim as stolen.” Joseph v. State, 956 So. 2d 1232, 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (citing Rossi v. State, 717 So. 2d 611, 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)). Where the State fails to prove that a conveyance that was [*798] recovered by police is the samé conveyance that was burglarized or stolen, a conviction or adjudication for burglary or theft cannot stand. See, e.g., L.D.S.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Foster v. State, 557 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- C.O. v. State, 557 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Coyle v. State, 493 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- CAN AM Inv. Realty, Inc. v. A.F. "Jerry" Egan, 561 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)