PHILLIP WEST, 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.
Phillip West was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny, but the appellate court found insufficient evidence of the specific intent to commit grand larceny. The court reversed and remanded for entry of a conviction for the lesser offense of breaking and entering with intent to commit petit larceny.
The court held that while intent to commit a felony in a breaking and entering case may be proven by circumstantial evidence, the evidence in this case was insufficient to prove intent to commit grand larceny. The evidence was sufficient only to prove breaking and entering with intent to commit petit larceny.
[1] A conviction for breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a felony requires proof of intent to commit grand larceny.
[2] Intent to commit grand larceny in a breaking and entering case may be proven by circumstantial evidence.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 the absence of other evidence or circumstances, the best evidence of what he (the defendant) intended to steal is what he did steal.”
Establishes the legal principle that actual conduct of theft is primary evidence of intent to steal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn June 8, 1972, appellant broke into the Buccaneer Lodge, a building where he had recently worked. Two police officers observed him enter an office a…
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 Breaking And Entering With Intent To Commit A Misdemeanor cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellant, defendant in the trial court, seeks review of a judgment and sentence of two years incarceration for breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a felony, to wit: grand larceny.
The evidence at trial revealed that appellant broke into the Buccaneer Lodge, where he recently had been employed, on June 8, 1972. Two police officers observed appellant enter an office area of the building, and they waited approximately forty minutes for him to leave, when they arrested him. Police searched the appellant and discovered only two keys to the building in his possession. Further testi-. mony indicated damage within the office to a desk drawer and to a door lock, and that a supply cabinet had been rifled. However, items of personal property in the office, including a watch, typewriters and an adding machine in excess of $100 in value had not been disturbed.
Based upon this evidence, a jury returned a verdict of guilty. Appellant argues that the trial judge should have directed a verdict of acquittal at the close of the state’s case because the evidence failed to prove an element of the crime, intent by the appellant to commit grand larceny.
Appellant concedes that the state satisfactorily proved a breaking and entering, and he is not guiltless. Therefore, we do not find error in the court’s denial of a directed verdict of acquittal.
However, there is merit to appellant’s contention that the state failed to prove he intended to commit grand larceny. It is clearly the law that the element of intent in Fla.Stat. § 810.02, F.S.A., under which appellant was convicted, may be proven by circumstantial evidence. Jones v. State, Fla.App.1966, 192 So. 2d 285; Dobry v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So. 2d 603.
However, the Florida Supreme Court in Jalbert v. State, Fla.1957, 95 So. 2d 589, stated, “In the absence of other evidence or circumstances, the best evidence of what he (the defendant) intended to steal is what he did steal.” This court has held that where the state’s only evidence of an intent to commit grand larceny in a case of this nature is that a dwelling house contained property valued in excess of $100, such evidence is not sufficient to prove intent. Thompson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 207 So. 2d 692. In the instant case, the evidence shows that appellant was caught with two keys to the Buccaneer Lodge in his possession. We have determined from the record that the evidence was sufficient to prove only a breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor, to-wit: petit larceny. See Fla. Stat. § 810.05, F.S.A. Accordingly, and by virtue of the provisions of Fla.Stat. § 924.34, F.S.A., the judgment and sentence appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to the trial court to enter a judgment against the appellant for breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor, to-wit: petit larceny, and to impose a new sentence.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eaton v. State, 307 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…(in absence of other evidence or circumstances sufficient to prove intent to commit grand larceny or to prompt 'and support a reasonable inference of the existence of such intent). This court so held, in such a case, in West v. State, Fla.App.1974, 289 So. 2d 758 (where the defendant, apprehended after entering and departing the premises, was found to have taken only two keys to the building). The Supreme Court so held in a case where the entrant, apprehended after having left a residence, was found to have…
-
Jackson v. State, 300 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…ld that where the State’s only evidence of an intent to commit grand larceny in a case of this nature is that a dwelling house contained property valued in excess of $100, such evidence is not sufficient to prove intent. West v. State, Fla.App.1974, 289 So. 2d 758. The evidence adduced at trial in the case at bar consisted of? (1) that the subject dwelling contained property in excess of $100, and (2) the defendants broke into and entered the victim’s home only for a minute or two and then ran out without hav…
-
State v. West, 300 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 1974)…Certiorari denied. 289 So. 2d 758. ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, BOYD and OVERTON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Esaw Jones v. State, 192 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Jalbert v. State, 95 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1957)
- Dobry v. State, 211 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Ralmundo Casamayor v. State, 207 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Thompson v. State, 207 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)