D.R.H., A CHILD, 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.
D.R.H. was adjudicated guilty of attempted burglary of a motor vehicle after a bench trial. The District Court of Appeal reversed because the State failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the vehicle D.R.H. admitted attempting to burglarize was the same vehicle belonging to the alleged victim, Mr. Powell.
The trial court erred in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal. The State failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Powell's vehicle was the same vehicle that D.R.H. admitted attempting to burglarize, requiring reversal based on insufficiency of evidence.
[1] A conviction for attempted burglary of a motor vehicle requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant attempted to enter a specific vehicle.
[2] Evidence is insufficient to support a conviction when the state fails to establish that the vehicle the defendant admitted attempting to enter is the same vehicle that wa…
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“there was no effort by the state to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the vehicle belonging to Mr. Powell was the same vehicle which D.R.H. admitted attempting to burglarize”
The central holding identifying the fatal evidentiary defect in the State's case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn May 22, 1998, Mr. Powell reported that someone had attempted to break into his 1998 Toyota Camry. Neighbor Eric Littlejohn observed two white men 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 Sufficiency Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
GREEN, Judge.
The appellant, D.R.H., challenges the bench trial order which adjudicated him guilty of attempting to burglarize a motor vehicle. D.R.H. raises two points on appeal, one of which is determinative. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. We agree and reverse.
Mr. Mitchell Powell testified that on May 22, 1998, he owned a 1998 Toyota Camry automobile and that someone had tried “to get into the vehicle.” He did not state where his Camry was located, although he gave his residence address as 2803 West Shgh Avenue. There was also testimony by Mr. Eric Littlejohn, who was a neighbor of Mr. Powell, that on May 22, 1998, he had observed two white men, ages thirty-five to forty and about 5T1” or 6’, in the apartment parking lot “messing with” an automobile which belonged to Mr. Powell’s wife. He did not identify the automobile. He eliminated D.R.H. as being either of the culprits.
Deputy Miniet of the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office testified that on May 22, 1998, D.R.H. was in custody on an unrelated arrest. D.R.H. pointed to a vehicle located in an apartment complex at the intersection of Sligh and Habana and said, “that’s the one we tried to get into. But we failed and tried both sides of the vehicle to get into it.” Deputy Miniet was not sure but he thought the vehicle was a maroon Toyota Camry. The officer also stated he saw the owner at the scene but did not identify him except as a black male. There was no physical evidence linking D.R.H. to the attempted burglary, and there was no direct evidence which connected Mr. Powell’s Camry with the Camry pointed out by D.R.H. to Deputy Miniet. Defense counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal based on this deficiency before the evidentiary portion of the trial was completed. Simply stated, there was no effort by the state to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the vehicle belonging to Mr. Powell was'the same vehicle which D.R.H. admitted attempting to burglarize. See Foster v. State, 557 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). We are therefore compelled to reverse based upon the insufficiency of the evidence. Reversed.
PARKER, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goad v. State, 887 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…8), 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 also D.R.H. v. State, 761 So. 2d 379, 380 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (concluding that the evidence was insufficient when “there was no effort by the state to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the vehicle belonging to Mr. Powell was the same vehicle which D.R.H. admitted attempting to bu…
Authorities Cited
- Foster v. State, 557 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)