LAMEKA HARRIS, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• L.R.L. v. State, 9 So. 3d 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
  …nviction was based on his knowing possession of stolen property; the State introduced no evidence to show that L.R.L. was the actual thief. “[I]f a defendant possesses property that he knows is stolen, he can be convicted of theft.” M.D.S. v. State, 982 So. 2d 1282, 1284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). The State presented no evidence that L.R.L. was ever in possession of the items missing from the truck after it was recovered. Thus, we conclude that the court erred in awarding $2500 in restitution for these items. See Cr…
• Rivers v. State, 124 So. 3d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
  …“are cumbersome to transfer”); Kittles v. State, 897 So. 2d 517, 519 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (noting instruction on inference given in case where possession of stolen property shown to be no more than eighteen hours after burglary); cf. M.D.S. v. State, 982 So. 2d 1282, 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (concluding that inference did not apply, in part because State failed to prove when car was taken and thus failed to prove it was “recently’ stolen). We have considered whether proof of Rivers’ possession, standing alone,…
• C.T. v. State, 238 So. 3d 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
  …2d 960, 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). In order to prove the crime of grand theft of a motor vehicle, the State was required to prove that C.T. knowingly obtained or used the motor vehicle of another. See § 812.014(1), Fla. Stat. (2016) ; M.D.S. v. State, 982 So. 2d 1282, 1284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) ("In order to establish the crime of theft, the State must prove that the accused 'knowingly' obtained or used the property of another with the intent to deprive that person of the use of the property or to appropriate the p…