AMADEO HENRY COLANGELO, 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.
Conviction for grand larceny reversed because the evidence failed to establish a false representation of a past or existing fact, which is required under Florida's larceny statute.
A conviction for grand larceny by fraudulent representation requires proof of a false representation of a past or existing fact, not merely a breach of contract or failure to perform.
[1] Grand larceny by fraudulent representation requires proof of a false representation of a past or existing fact; a mere breach of contract or failure to perform work does…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 record is devoid of any proof of a false representation of a past or existing fact”
Court explaining why the evidence was insufficient to support the grand larceny conviction
Appellant obtained $1,000 from Gerry Weeks under a contract to perform home repairs, cashed the check, but never performed any work and became unavail…
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 Fraudulent Representations cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of grand larceny as a result of an information charging essentially that he unlawfully took from the possession of the true owner money in excess of $100 belonging to Gerry Weeks, in that appellant obtained such property by fraudulent representation and with intent to permanently • deprive Gerry Weeks of her property contrary to § 811.021(1) (a).
The proof at trial showed that Gerry Weeks had, pursuant to a contract, paid appellant $1,000 to perform certain work on her home. After cashing Weeks’s check appellant never did any work nor was Weeks able to even contact appellant for a long period of time. However, the record is devoid of any proof of a false representation of a past or existing fact. Accordingly, our decision in Waterman v. State, Fla.App., 317 So. 2d 469, opinion filed August 15, 1975, is completely dispositive of this case.
Since the evidence did not support the allegations of the information, the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal. Thus, it is unnecessary for us to treat the other suggested appellate points. However, in passing we would once again call attention to the lack of propriety in some of the prosecutor’s comments in his closing argument. In this regard see Thompson v. State, Fla. App.1970, 235 So. 2d 354.
Reversed and remanded with directions to discharge appellant.
CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Demetra Thompson v. State, 235 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Waterman v. State, 317 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)