DAVID CANADY, 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.
The court held that the State failed to prove the necessary elements for grand theft of a motor vehicle, and the conviction could not be reduced to trespass of a conveyance without proper allegations.
David Canady was a passenger in a stolen car and was convicted of armed robbery, grand theft of a motor vehicle, and giving a false name.…
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 Charging Document Allegations cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
David Canady appeals his judgment and sentence for armed robbery with a firearm, grand theft of a motor vehicle, and giving a false name to a law enforcement officer. Because the State failed to prove the necessary elements to support a conviction for grand theft of a motor vehicle, we vacate the judgment and sentence for that offense.
The evidence presented at trial reflects that Canady was a passenger in a car that had been stolen. The evidence was insufficient to prove his criminal intent to deprive another person of property, or to appropriate the property, as required under section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1999). See A.J.R. v. State, 726 So. 2d 326, 327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). An individual who is a passenger in a vehicle after the vehicle has been stolen, even with knowledge that it has been stolen, cannot be convicted of grand theft. Schlangen v. State, 735 So. 2d 581, 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
We also agree with Canady’s argument that his conviction for grand theft cannot be reduced to a conviction for tres pass of a conveyance because the charging document did not allege the necessary elements. The information that was filed alleged grand theft under section 812.014, and did not allege trespass under section 810.08, Florida Statutes (1999). See I.T. v. State, 694 So. 2d 720, 724 (Fla.1997).
Accordingly, we vacate Canady’s judgment and sentence for grand theft of a motor vehicle and remand with directions that he be discharged as to that offense. We affirm Canady’s judgment and sentence in all other respects.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
FULMER and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alfonso-Roche v. State, 199 So. 3d 941 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…ate, 106 So. 3d 67, 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (reversing grand theft auto conviction where state failed to present evidence that juvenile knew his friend intended on stealing the van and only entered the stolen van after it was stolen); Canady v. State, 813 So. 2d 161, 161 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (reversing conviction because defendant was. merely a passenger in a vehicle that he knew was stolen). In short, the State failed to present evidence that the defendant knew that the gray truck was stolen or that he assisted…1 / 2
-
A.D.P. v. State, 223 So. 3d 428 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…A.D.P. had possession of the property and that the property was “recently stolen.” M.D.S., 982 So. 2d at 1285. Evidence that a person was a passenger in a previously stolen vehicle is insufficient to prove the theft of the vehicle. Canady v. State, 813 So. 2d 161, 161 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); A.J.R. v. State, 726 So. 2d 326, 327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Prince v. State, 979 So. 2d 1212, 1213 (Fla. 4th [*431] DCA 2008). When the State fails to show that the accused exercised dominion and control over the vehicle, such…
-
J. K. v. State, 237 So. 3d 904 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…a previously stolen vehicle is insufficient to prove the theft of the vehicle."). As noted in J.A.H., because the evidence established, at most, that J.K. was a passenger in the vehicle, judgment of dismissal was required. See Canady v. State, 813 So. 2d 161, 161 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) ("An individual who is a passenger in a vehicle after the vehicle has been stolen, even with knowledge that it has been stolen, cannot be convicted of grand theft."). We also note that J.A.H., unlike J.K., made statements…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- I.T. v. State, 694 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 1997)
- A.J.R. v. State, 726 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Schlangen v. State, 735 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)