TONY PUREL HOWARD, 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.
Tony Howard was convicted by jury of burglary, petit theft, and resisting arrest. The appellate court affirmed the burglary conviction but reversed the petit theft conviction due to insufficient evidence of ownership of the allegedly stolen binoculars.
The burglary conviction was affirmed. The petit theft conviction was reversed because the State failed to prove that the binoculars belonged to someone other than the defendant, which is an essential element of theft under Florida law.
[1] A conviction for petit theft requires proof that the defendant knowingly obtained or used, or endeavored to obtain or to use, the property of another.
[2] Evidence is insufficient to support a petit theft conviction when the State fails to prove that the stolen property belonged to someone other than the defendant.
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“In order to prove a defendant guilty of that crime, the State is required to prove that he knowingly obtained or used, or endeavored to obtain or to use, 'the property of another.'”
Establishes the essential element of theft that requires proof the property belonged to another person
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA law enforcement officer observed Howard inside the fenced perimeter of a Florida Power & Light substation. As Howard fled from the officer, he dropp…
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 Proof Of Ownership cases and more on FLexlaw
A jury convicted Tony Howard of burglary of a structure, petit theft, and resisting a law enforcement officer without violence. In this appeal he contends the evidence was insufficient to support the burglary and petit theft convictions. We disagree with his argument concerning the burglary conviction, and we affirm it without further discussion. We do, however, conclude that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for petit theft. Therefore, we reverse that conviction and direct the trial court to discharge Howard on that offense.
*271The charges in this case arose from a break-in at a Florida Power & Light substation. A law enforcement officer saw Howard inside the fenced perimeter of the substation. Howard ran away from the officer and, as he did, dropped a black case on the ground. The case contained a pair of binoculars.
Howard’s possession of the binoculars was the basis of the petit theft charge. In order to prove a defendant guilty of that crime, the State is required to prove that he knowingly obtained or used, or endeavored to obtain or to use, “the property of another.” § 812.014(1), Fla. Stat. (2005) (emphasis supplied). See Nelson v. State, 453 So.2d 473, 475 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); see also Jenkins v. State, 898 So.2d 1134, 1135 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
Here the State failed to prove that the binoculars belonged to someone other than the defendant. The only evidence about the ownership of the binoculars came from an FPL engineer. He testified that FPL furnished binoculars to its employees but that the company did not tag or otherwise mark them as FPL property. While the brand of binoculars Howard dropped was one that the company issued, it was not the only brand the company used. No employees reported that their binoculars were missing or testified to that fact at trial. The engineer conceded that he could not establish who owned the binoculars.
Accordingly, we reverse Howard’s petit theft conviction. We remand to the trial court to discharge Howard on that charge and to strike the sentence imposed for it.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
ALTENBERND and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Nelson v. State, 453 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Jenkins v. State, 898 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)