PAUL SANDERS, 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.
Paul Sanders was convicted of burglary, petit theft, and possession of burglary tools. The Florida appellate court affirmed his burglary and petit theft convictions but reversed his conviction for possession of burglary tools based on the Florida Supreme Court's recent decision in Calliar v. State, which held that burglary tools must be intended to facilitate entry into a building, not tools used for other purposes after entry.
Sanders's conviction for possession of burglary tools must be reversed because the essential elements of the crime were not established. The tools in Sanders's possession were not intended to facilitate entry into the residence, as required under Calliar. His convictions for burglary and petit theft are affirmed.
[1] A conviction for possession of burglary tools requires proof that the tools were intended to facilitate the burglary, not merely used to commit other crimes after the bur…
[2] Evidence that a screwdriver was found in a suspect's toolbox after he entered a residence does not establish possession of burglary tools if there is no proof the screwdr…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the plain language of section 810.06 contemplated that the unlawful tools "are those intended to be used to facilitate the burglary and not things used to commit other crimes after the burglary is complete."”
Establishes the court's interpretation of the burglary tools statute following Calliar, requiring tools be intended for entry rather than post-entry crimes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn eyewitness saw Sanders rip a window screen and push open a window to enter a mobile home. Sanders was found leaving with a tool box. Inside the hom…
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 Possession Of Burglary Tools cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
Paul Sanders was convicted of burglary, petit theft and possession of burglary tools. His attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We determined that the record raised an issue of arguable merit concerning Sanders’s conviction for possession of burglary tools, and ordered appellate counsel to file supplementary briefs addressing whether Sanders’s conviction for this offense could stand in light of the Florida Supreme Court’s recent decision in Calliar v. State, 760 So. 2d 885 (Fla.1999), rehearing denied, April 12, 2000. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). After reviewing the supplemental briefs, we conclude that Sanders’s conviction for possession of burglary tools must be reversed. We affirm his other convictions and sentences without further discussion.
At trial, an eyewitness testified that he watched Sanders rip a window screen on a mobile home and push open a window that had been left ajar. Sanders then entered the home through the window. The eyewitness contacted law enforcement, and an officer apprehended Sanders as he left the mobile home carrying a tool box. When the officer checked inside the home, he found a window air conditioner sitting on the floor. The homeowner testified that the air conditioner had been in place in a window the day before. The officer theorized the appliance had been unscrewed from its window mount. Sanders’s tool box contained a screwdriver. Based on these facts, Sanders was charged with and convicted of possession of burglary tools. See § 810.06, Fla. Stat. (1997).
While Sanders’s appeal was pending, the supreme court decided Calliar. It held that the plain language of section 810.06 contemplated that the unlawful tools “are those intended to be used to facilitate the burglary and not things used to commit other crimes after the burglary is complete.” As the State concedes, there was no evidence in this case that Sanders used the screwdriver, or any other tool in his box, to enter the residence. Thus, the essential elements of the crime of possession of burglary tools were not established. We reverse Sanders’s conviction for this offense and remand for resentencing.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sanders v. State, 793 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…3.850. Sanders was convicted after a jury trial of burglary, petit theft, and possession of burglary tools. On direct appeal, this court reversed the conviction for possession of burglary tools, but affirmed the other convictions. Sanders v. State, 775 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). In his motion for postconviction relief, Sanders alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and insufficiency of the evidence. We reverse for further proceedings as to the claims of ineffective ass…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1988)
- Daryell Calliar v. State, 760 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 1999)