KENNETH RAY GOAD, 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.
Kenneth Ray Goad appeals his convictions for burglary of a dwelling and petit theft. The court reversed the theft conviction due to insufficient evidence linking the lawn mower in Goad's possession to the victim's specific lawn mower, but affirmed the burglary conviction because Goad failed to preserve his sufficiency-of-evidence argument at trial.
The court reversed the theft conviction because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the lawn mower in Goad's possession was Carballo's specific lawn mower. The court affirmed the burglary conviction, holding that Goad's sufficiency-of-evidence argument regarding the dwelling was not preserved for appeal and does not constitute fundamental error because the evidence was sufficient to show that a crime was committed.
[1] A conviction for theft requires proof that the property obtained or used was the property of the alleged victim.
[2] A claim of insufficiency of the evidence must be specifically preserved for appellate review unless the evidence is insufficient to show that a crime was committed at all…
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“To convict Appellant of grand theft of a motor vehicle, the state was required to present evidence that the vehicle in Appellant's possession was the vehicle identified by the victim as stolen.”
Establishes the legal requirement that the State must prove the specific property in the defendant's possession is the victim's identified property in a theft case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGoad was charged with theft of Santiago Carballo's lawn mower and burglary of Carballo's dwelling. At trial, Goad moved for judgment of acquittal on b…
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 Dwelling cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
Kenneth Ray Goad appeals his judgment and sentence for burglary of a dwelling and petit theft. We reverse the theft conviction and affirm the burglary conviction.
The State charged Goad with the theft of Santiago Carballo’s lawn mower and the burglary of Carballo’s dwelling. During trial, Goad argued motions for judgment of acquittal on the charges. As to the theft, he asserted that the State failed to prove a link between the lawn mower he took and Carballo’s lawn mower. To prove the theft charge under section 812.014, Florida Statutes (2003), the State was required to prove that Goad knowingly obtained or used, or endeavored to obtain or use, the property of Santiago Carballo. In Rossi v. State, 717 So. 2d 611, 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), the court stated that “[t]o convict Appellant of grand theft of a motor vehicle, the state was required to present evidence that the vehicle in Appellant’s possession was the vehicle identified by the victim as stolen.” See also D.R.H. v. State, 761 So. 2d 379, 380 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (concluding that the evidence was insufficient when “there was no effort by the state to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the vehicle belonging to Mr. Powell was the same vehicle which D.R.H. admitted attempting to burglarize”); In re J.H., 579 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (observing that the State failed to establish that the gold Seiko watch found in the appellant’s pocket was the same Seiko watch taken from the victim’s home). Here, the record demonstrates that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Carballo’s lawn mower was the one found in Goad’s possession. Thus, we reverse his judgment and sentence for petit theft.
Goad makes a similar argument on appeal with respect to the burglary charge, asserting that the State failed to prove that the dwelling Goad entered was Car-ballo’s dwelling. However, Goad did not make this argument in his motion for judgment of acquittal on the burglary charge and, thus, has not preserved this issue for review. An error with respect to the sufficiency of the evidence will be considered fundamental in a noncapital case only if “the evidence is insufficient to show that a crime was committed at all.” F.B. v. State, 852 So. 2d 226, 230 (Fla.2003). Otherwise, a claim of insufficiency of the evidence must be specifically preserved for review. Id. at 231. Because the evidence on this charge was sufficient to show that a crime was committed, Goad is not entitled to relief on his unpreserved argument as to the burglary. With respect to the other arguments Goad makes for reversal of his burglary conviction, we affirm without comment.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
FULMER and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gehring v. State, 937 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…ce was insufficient to establish that the firearm was on or about Gehring’s person. Counsel only argued that the State had not proven the aggravated stalking count. Therefore, the specific issue raised on appeal was not preserved. See Goad v. State, 887 So. 2d 415, 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“Goad did not make this argument in his motion for judgment of acquittal on the burglary charge and, thus, has not preserved this issue for review.”). However, the error is fundamental because the evidence was insufficient t…
-
Fountain v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…9, 1281 (Fla. 1986))). Finally, because Mr. Fountain did not object to the trial court's denial of his JOA motion, the State contends that he failed to preserve the issue for our review. We reject this contention. The State relies on Goad v. State, 887 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). However, in that case, we hewed to the rather unremarkable principle that for a JOA argument to be preserved for appeal, the defendant must have raised the same JOA argument below. See id. at 416 ("Goad did not make this argumen…
Authorities Cited
- F.B. v. State, 852 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2003)
- Rossi v. State, 717 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- In the Interest of J.H., 579 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- D.R.H. v. State, 761 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)