ROBERT LEON GAITER, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 element of custody for attempted robbery, as the landlord did not have care, supervision, or control over the tenant's bicycle.
[1] Robbery requires proof that the property taken was in the actual or constructive possession of the victim.
[2] A landlord does not have custody of a tenant's personal property merely by virtue of owning the land on which the property is located.
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 intelligenceRobert Gaiter was seen sawing the lock off a tenant's bicycle chained to a pole on the landlord's property. An altercation ensued, and Gaiter was char…
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 Elements Of A Crime cases and more on FLexlaw
RAMIREZ, J.
Robert Leon Gaiter appeals the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of attempted robbery. We reverse because appellee State of Florida failed to establish all the elements of the crime charged.
Wes Brent was at his rental property when he saw Gaiter sawing the lock off a bicycle that belonged to Brent’s tenant. The tenant rents an apartment located at the rear of the house. The tenant’s bicycle and Brent’s jet ski were chained to a basketball hoop pole at the rear of Brent’s property. Brent confronted Gaiter and an altercation ensued. Gaiter struck Brent on the head, neck, and chest with a saw, and bit Brent’s finger. The bite resulted in the amputation of Brent’s finger tip.
Gaiter was arrested and charged with aggravated battery,1 and attempted robbery. Brent’s tenant testified at trial that he owned the subject bicycle, and that he was the only one with a key to the lock on' the bicycle. There was no testimony as to whether the tenant granted custody of the bicycle to the landlord. At the conclusion of the State’s case, Gaiter moved for a judgment of acquittal as to the attempted robbery charge, arguing that Brent was not in actual custody of the bicycle. The trial court expressed concern about whether Brent had custody of •the bicycle, but denied the motion. The court held that, as the owner of the property, Brent had custody of whatever was located on the property. This was error. One of the essential elements of robbery is that the person who is placed in fear or assaulted must either own or have custody of the property being taken. See Fla. Stat. § 812.13(1) (2000) (“ ‘Robbery’ means the taking of money or other property which may be the subject of larceny from the person or custody of another, with the intent to either permanently or temporarily deprive the person or the owner of the money or other property, when in the course of the taking there is the use of force, violence, assault, or putting in fear.”). It is undisputed that Brent was not the owner of the bicycle. Nor was the bicycle on his person. It was chained to the basketball pole. Thus, in order for Gaiter’s conviction for attempted robbery to stand, it was necessary for Brent to have custody of the bicycle.2 He did not.
Custody is defined as “care, supervision, and control exerted by one in charge.” THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY (3d ed.1996). Brent did not have possession or control over the bicycle as the tenant had the only key to the lock. Neither was Brent charged with the care and supervision of the bicycle.
Furthermore, the mere ownership of land upon which a tenant’s personal property is located does not give the landlord custody of the tenant’s personal property. Had the landlord taken the bicycle or appropriated it for his own use without permission, he would be subject to theft charges. See Seymour v. Adams, 638 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (even after eviction, landlord has no right to retain tenant’s property for unpaid rent). Nor does a landlord have a legal right to his tenant’s personal property so as to allow a police search. See Morse v. State, 604 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
Thus, Brent had no rights over the tenant’s bicycle; and no evidence was presented that the tenant had given Brent care, possession or control of the bicycle. The State therefore failed to prove that Brent had custody. See People v. Nguyen, 24 Cal.4th 756, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 548, 14 P. 3d 221 (2001) (holding that, under California’s similar statute, robbery is limited to the traditional approach which criminalizes the taking from persons in either actual or constructive possession of the property).3 Because all the elements of robbery were not met, Gaiter’s conviction for attempted robbery cannot stand.
Reversed.
. The jury was unable to reach a verdict as to the charge of aggravated battery.
. "No principle of criminal law is better settled than that the State must prove the allegations set up in the information or indictment.” Lewis v. State, 53 So. 2d 707, 708 (Fla. 1951). The information charges Gaiter with attempting to take the property of the tenant from the person or custody of Brent.
. As the Nguyen case points out, the legislature is free to adopt a different approach, such as under the Model Penal Code, which defines robbery as a theft with the infliction, or threat of infliction, or putting any person in fear of immediate serious bodily injury.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. State, 36 So. 3d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…the force, violence, assault, or putting in fear is exerted, provided that the taking and the use of force comprise a continuous series of acts or events. See Santilli, 570 So. 2d 400; Rumph, 544 So. 2d 1150. Thomas’ reliance upon Gaiter v. State, 824 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), is misplaced. Gaiter is entirely distinguishable from the case before us as it involved a landlord who confronted a would-be thief attempting to steal, from the landlord’s premises, a bicycle belonging to the landlord’s tenant. U…
-
Cash v. State, 875 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…§ 812.133(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). The victim does not have to be the owner of the motor vehicle, but must have custody of the vehicle at the time of the offense. Id.; see also Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 15.2. The State relies on Gaiter v. State, 824 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), to support its argument. However, Gaiter is distinguishable from this case. In that case, the defendant was charged with robbing a landlord of a bicycle that was chained to a basketball hoop pole on the landlord’s [*832] property…
Authorities Cited
- Seymour v. Adams, 638 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Lewis v. State, 53 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 1951)
- Morse v. State, 604 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)