L.D.S., 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.
L.D.S. appeals his adjudication of delinquency for burglary of a conveyance and petit theft. The court reversed, holding that the State failed to prove ownership of the burglarized vehicle, which is a material element of the crime.
The State failed to prove a material element of burglary—ownership of the burglarized conveyance—because there was no evidence that the green, four-door Saturn observed being burglarized at 13th Avenue and 17th Street was the same vehicle belonging to Mr. Tate.
[1] A conviction for burglary requires proof of ownership of the conveyance as alleged in the charging document, as it is a material element of the crime.
[2] Evidence is insufficient to support an adjudication of delinquency for burglary and petit theft when the State fails to prove that the burglarized vehicle was the propert…
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“We agree that the State failed to prove that the green, four-door Saturn, which was the subject of the burglary by the group of youths on 13th Avenue in Ybor City, was the same vehicle which belonged to Mr. Tate.”
Establishes the core holding that the State failed to prove ownership of the burglarized vehicle
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn February 5, 1999, Darin Tate parked his Saturn SL2 in Ybor City. When he returned, police officers surrounded the vehicle, the rear passenger windo…
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
SALCINES, Judge.
L.D.S. appeals the order of the juvenile division of the circuit court which found him to be guilty of burglary of a conveyance and petit theft. We hold that the trial court should have granted L.D.S.’s motion for a judgment of acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to support the adjudication of delinquency.
A detention petition charged that L.D.S. unlawfully entered or remained in a motor vehicle, which was the property of Darin Tate, with the intent to commit an offense therein. He also was charged with taking a T-shirt which had been located inside the vehicle.
At the adjudicatory hearing, Mr. Tate testified that on February 5, 1999, he had parked his four-door Saturn SL2 in Ybor City. When he returned to the vehicle, it was surrounded by police officers, the rear passenger window had been broken out, and a unique T-shirt, which had been on the back seat, was missing. Mr. Tate did not indicate the name of the street upon which his vehicle had been parked; neither did he identify the vehicle’s license plate number or vehicle identification number, nor provide any further description of his vehicle.
A police officer testified that on February 5, 1999, he observed a group of youths at the intersection of 13th Avenue and 17th Street in Ybor City. The individuals were looking into the vehicles parked along the street when one of the youths picked up a brick or rock and threw it through one of the windows of a green, four-door Saturn. Thereafter, “a couple” of the youths entered the vehicle. This was the only testimony presented by the officer describing the vehicle which was the subject of the burglary. Other police officers testified about the arrest of the individuals, but did not supply any further identifying information concerning the subject vehicle.
At the conclusion of the presentation of all the evidence, counsel for L.D.S. moved for a judgment of acquittal because the State had failed to prove a prima facie case. We agree that the State failed to prove that the green, four-door Saturn, which was the subject of the burglary by the group of youths on 13th Avenue in Ybor City, was the same vehicle which belonged to Mr. Tate.
To support a conviction for burglary, the allegation of ownership of the conveyance must be proven as alleged in the detention petition or information, since it is a material element of the crime. In Interest of M.E., 370 So. 2d 795, 796 (Fla.1979). See D.P. v. State, 656 So. 2d 286, 286-287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); In Interest of M.M., 571 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). As the State faded to prove the essential element of ownership of the burglarized vehicle, L.D.S.’s adjudication of delinquency for burglary and petit theft must be reversed.
The decision to deny the motion for judgment of acquittal was erroneous. This case is reversed and remanded to the juvenile division of the circuit court which is directed to discharge L.D.S. as to these offenses.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
BLUE, A.C.J., and STRINGER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.S.S. v. State, 850 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 2003)…5. In so holding, the Second District stated: We fully agree that in the context of a private building,or an automobile, the State must present evidence as to the owner or possessor of the property in order to prove a burglary. See L.D.S. v. State, 784 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); In the Interest of M.M., 571 So. 2d 112 [(Fla. 4th DCA 1990)]. Moreover, in this case, we are not required to decide whether we agree with the analysis of the Third District in [A.L. v. State, 359 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) ],…
-
D.S.S. v. State, 806 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…. 2d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Id. at 112-13. We fully agree that in the context of a private building or an automobile, the State must present evidence as to the owner or possessor of the property in order to prove a burglary. See L.D.S. v. State, 784 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); In the Interest of M.M., 571 So. 2d 112. Moreover, in this case, we are not required to decide whether we agree with the analysis of the Third District in A.L., 359 So. 2d 583, because that cased involved an unnamed building unde…
-
V.G. v. State, 224 So. 3d 795 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…2d DCA 2006). “To support a conviction for burglary [of a conveyance], the allegation of ownership of the conveyance must be proven as alleged in the detention petition or information, since it is a material element of the crime.” L.D.S. v. State, 784 So. 2d 1227, 1228 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (citing In Interest of M.E., 370 So. 2d 795, 796 (Fla. 1979)). Similarly, “[t]o 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 id…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In the Interest of M. E., 370 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 1979)
- In the Interest of M.M., 571 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Chihocky v. Era Mae Thomas, 656 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)