R.G., 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.
R.G., a minor, was found guilty of burglary of a structure but acquitted of grand theft. On appeal, the court reversed his conviction because the State failed to present evidence that R.G. entered a structure, which is an essential element of the crime of burglary.
The conviction for burglary of a structure is reversed because the State failed to present any evidence that R.G. entered a building or its curtilage. Since entrance into a structure is an essential element of burglary, and the State failed to carry its burden as to this element, R.G. should be discharged.
[1] Burglary of a structure requires proof that the defendant entered a building or the curtilage thereof.
[2] The State bears the burden of proving every essential element of the crime charged.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“a structure as 'a building of any kind, either temporary or permanent, which has a roof over it, together with the curtilage thereof.'”
Establishes the legal definition of structure under Florida law that the State failed to prove in this case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR.G. and four others jumped a fence at the Bonaventure Country Club and entered a maintenance area where golf carts were stored. The group rode the ca…
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 Burglary Of A Structure cases and more on FLexlaw
GUNTHER, J.
R.G. was charged with grand theft and burglary of a structure. He was acquitted on the charge of grand theft but found guilty of burglary of a structure. Adjudication was withheld and R.G. was placed on probation. R.G. now appeals his adjudication on the charge of burglary of a structure. Because we find that R.G.’s adjudication was not supported by the evidence, we reverse and remand.
R.G.’s charge of burglary of a structure arose out of an incident that occurred one night at the Bonaventure Country Club. At trial, testimony was introduced that R.G. and four others jumped a fence at the club and went into a maintenance area. The group started riding the golf carts that were stored there. The group then rammed the front fence causing it to fall and rode over the fence, taking the carts onto the golf course.
R.G. appeals, arguing that insufficient evidence was presented that he entered a structure. This court reviews a claim of insufficiency of the evidence to determine if there was competent and substantial evidence to support the finding of guilt. See Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120, 1123 (Fla.1981).
Section 810.011, Florida Statutes (2002), defines a structure as “a building of any kind, either temporary or permanent, which has a roof over it, together with the curtilage thereof.” Here, the State failed to present any evidence that R.G. entered a building or the curtilage of a building when taking the carts. Thus, the State failed to carry its burden as to an essential element of the crime charged, which was that R.G. entered a structure. See Davis v. State, 736 So. 2d 27, 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (stating that entrance into a structure is an essential element of burglary); K.E.A. v. State, 802 So. 2d 410, 412 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (stating that “the state failed to carry its burden of proving every essential element of the crime charged”). Because insufficient evidence was presented as to this essential element, R.G. should be discharged. See Tibbs, 397 So. 2d at 1122, 1127. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
FARMER, C.J., and GROSS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Delbert Lee Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1981)
- Osby Davis v. State, 736 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- K.E.A. v. State, 802 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)