CHARLES L. MESENBRINK, 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.
Appellant was convicted of possessing burglary tools in violation of Florida statute § 810.06. The appellate court reversed, holding that the state failed to prove the requisite felonious intent to use the tools for burglary, which is an essential element of the crime.
The evidence was insufficient to convict appellant of possession of burglary tools because the state failed to demonstrate the felonious intent required by the statute. Mere possession of tools capable of use as burglary instruments, without evidence of intent to commit burglary, is insufficient to support conviction under § 810.06.
[1] A conviction for possession of burglary tools requires proof of the intent to use the tools for the commission of burglary.
[2] Evidence of tools found in a defendant's apartment, without more, is insufficient to demonstrate the felonious intent required for a conviction of possession of burglary…
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“the applicable statute requires that the person so charged must have the "intent to use or employ or allow the [burglary tools] to be used or employed for [commission of burglary]"”
Establishes the essential element of felonious intent required by the statute
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was observed in a residential neighborhood and arrested for vagrancy. After being informed of his rights, he consented to a search of his ap…
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 Felonious Intent cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was charged by information for the crime of Possession of Burglary Tools, in violation of § 810.06, Fla. Stat., F.S.A. (1967). He pleaded not guilty, and was found guilty as charged.
The arresting officers initially observed the appellant in a residential neighborhood and concluded that his actions were so suspicious as to justify their further surveillance. Shortly thereafter, the appellant was placed under arrest for vagrancy. He was taken to the police station and fully informed of his constitutional rights. Thereafter, during interrogation, the appellant was asked by the police for his permission to search his apartment. The appellant gave that permission, signing a search waiver which contained his voluntary consent to the search.
The search of the house produced numerous tools, many of which were certainly capable of use as burglary instruments. However, as his main point on appeal, the appellant now contends that the evidence adduced was insufficient to convict him of the crime charged, to-wit: Possession of Burglary Tools. The position taken by the appellant is that since' the applicable statute requires that the person so charged must have the “intent to use or employ or allow the [burglary tools] to be used or employed for [commission of burglary]”, the state failed to demonstrate the felonious intent so required. It is significant that all prior convictions in the state under § 810.06, supra, which have been affirmed on appeal have shown situations wherein the convicted defendant below was in immediate possession of the tools. Eg., Brown v. State, 98 Fla. 871, 124 So. 467 (1929); Fitzgerald v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 511; Estevez v. State, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 830.
It is our opinion that the evidence, i. e., the tools which were seized in the appel*853lant’s apartment, was insufficient to show his intent to feloniously use the tools for criminal purposes. Therefore, we must reverse the judgment of the trial court, and further order that the appellant be discharged from custody which resulted from the charge upon which he was convicted in the instant cause.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burnette v. State, 258 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…5:00 P.M. from his step-father. He emphatically denied any intent to burglarize stores or machines. We have carefully reviewed the record, and compared the case of Troise v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 24 with Mesenbrink v. State, Fla.App.1970, 231 So. 2d 852. We express the view that the state failed to adduce sufficient competent evidence to prove the element of possession of the keys with the intent to use or employ or allow the burglary tool to be used or allowed or employed for the commission of a b…
-
Biggs v. State, 329 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…e, the State must establish that the tools are associated with some immediate or nearby illegal activity either past or threatened. “The defendant relied on the following cases: Burnette v. State, 258 So. 2d 470 (3rd DCA 1972); Mesenbrink v. State, 231 So. 2d 852 (3rd DCA 1970); Diaz v. State, 82 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 1955) (Chief Justice Drew’s dissenting opinion); Rinehart v. State, 114 So. 2d 487, (2nd DCA 1959) and Foster v. State, 286 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1973). “The defendant’s emphasis is that in the possesso…
Authorities Cited
- Estevez v. State, 189 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Fitzgerald v. State, 203 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Brown v. State, 98 Fla. 871 (Fla. 1929)