MICHAEL DEAN DOBRY, 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.
Michael Dobry was convicted after a bench trial of breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit grand larceny. He appealed arguing the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to prove the breaking and entering and the requisite intent, but the court affirmed, finding the evidence contradicted his innocent explanation and supported the conviction.
The circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. Dobry's explanation was not a reasonable hypothesis of innocence because it was contradicted by affirmative evidence including the opened razor blades, the cut screen, his fingerprints on the glass door, and the stealthy manner of approach. The evidence also supported a finding of intent to commit grand larceny given the circumstances of the case.
“In order to sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must be consistent with the defendant's guilt and inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.”
States the legal standard governing appellate review of convictions based on circumstantial evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDobry and another person were arrested at 9 P.M. in front of a residence after neighbors called police reporting two people entering the screened pati…
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 Intent To Commit Grand Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was convicted after a non-jury trial of the crime of breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit grand larceny. On this appeal he questions the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish (1) the breaking and entering and (2) the intent to commit grand larceny.
The appellant with another person was arrested at about 9 P.M. in front of a residence in Dade County, Florida. The police had been summoned by neighbors who observed two persons entering the screened patio area and attempting to open the patio doors of the residence. Appellant testified that he was looking for a friend and that he had gone to the rear of the residence and into the patio to see if anyone was at home.
Appellant contends that his testimony is consistent with a reasonable hypothesis of his innocence and urges that the conviction be reversed. He relies on the rule: In order to sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must be consistent with the defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Parish v. State, 98 Fla. 877, 124 So. 444 (1929); Mayo v. State, Fla. 1954, 71 So.2d 899.
The explanation which appellant advances as being consistent with a reasonable hypothesis of innocence is contradicted by affirmative evidence in the record that: (1) his companion carried an opened package of razor blades, and the screen in the door to the patio had been cut; (2) one of the intruders was observed trying to pull open a sliding glass door between the patio and the house, and appellant’s fingerprints *604were found on that glass door; (3) appellant and his companion approached the residence late in the evening in a stealthy manner, arousing the suspicions of the neighbors. Because of this evidence we think that appellant’s explanation does not constitute a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. McBride v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 191 So.2d 70.
Appellant also contends that the state failed to prove that he had the intent to commit grand larceny. Section 811.021 (2), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., provides: “If the property stolen is of the value of one hundred dollars or more, the offender shall be deemed guilty of grand larceny * * The value of the contents of the residence was proved to be in excess of one hundred dollars. Whether the appellant had the intent to commit grand larceny is a question of fact to be decided by the trier of fact from all the circumstances of the case. Jones v. State, Fla.App.1966, 192 So.2d 28S. There is sufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that the appellant had the requisite intent.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Waters, 436 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1983)…State, 26 Fla. 523, 7 So. 863 (1890); Charles v. State, 36 Fla. 691, 18 So. 369 (1895); Jackson v. State, 300 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 312 So. 2d 753 (Fla.1975); Turner v. State, 267 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972); Dobry v. State, 211 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Bonamy v. State, 205 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Groneau v. State, 201 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 207 So. 2d 452 (Fla.1967). Although there may be exceptions where the statutory language is so generic [*69] that…1 / 3
-
von Eberstein v. State, 270 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)…ate, 44 So. 2d 81 (Fla.1949), where a conviction of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny was upheld when it had been established that the thief went directly to a room containing $20,000 worth of jewels. Also see Dobry v. State, 211 So. 2d 603 (3 Fla.App.1908), where the value of household goods was established to be in excess of $100. . Channell v. State, 107 So. 2d 284 (2 Fla.App.1958). . Williams v. State, 101 So. 2d 877 (1 Fla.App.1958). . Channell v. State, supra, where a convicti…
-
Roundtree v. State, 236 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…of intent to commit grand larceny. It was disclosed in the evidence that a wholesale meat business was conducted on the prem [*141] ises, and that it contained merchandise of the company valued in excess of $75,000. See Dohry v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So. 2d 603. Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mayo v. State, 71 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 1954)
- James Parish v. State, 98 Fla. 877 (Fla. 1929)
- McBRIDE v. State, 191 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)