DIANA ADLINGTON, PETITIONER,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Diana Adlington was convicted of petit larceny, resisting arrest without violence, and reckless driving. The Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District, granted her petition for certiorari, quashing the petit larceny conviction due to insufficient proof of ownership or superior possession, while denying the state's cross-petition challenging the reversal of the resisting arrest conviction.
The petit larceny conviction is quashed because the state failed to prove the requisite ownership or superior possession of the alleged stolen property in one other than the petitioner. The circuit court properly reversed the resisting arrest conviction, so the state's cross-petition is denied.
[1] A conviction for petit larceny requires proof of ownership or superior possession of the alleged stolen property in someone other than the defendant.
[2] An arrest is illegal if no probable cause exists at the time of the arrest.
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“respondent-cross-petitioner failed to prove the requisite ownership or superior possession of the alleged stolen property in one other than petitioner-cross-respondent”
Establishes the essential element missing in the petit larceny conviction that required reversal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAdlington was charged with petit larceny (shoplifting), resisting arrest without violence, and reckless driving. After a non-jury trial in county cour…
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 Reckless Driving cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner-cross-respondent, defendant in the trial court and appellant in the circuit court, seeks issuance of a writ of certiorari directed to an order of the circuit court which, inter alia, affirmed her conviction for petit larceny (shoplifting).
Respondent-cross-petitioner, prosecution in the trial court and appellee in the circuit court, has cross-petitioned this court to quash a portion of that same order which reversed petitioner-cross-respondent’s conviction for resisting arrest without violence.
Petitioner-cross-respondent was charged with the crimes of petit larceny, in violation of Section 812.021, Florida Statutes (1975); resisting arrest without violence, in violation of Section 843.02 Florida Statutes (1975); and reckless driving, in violation of Section 316.029, Florida Statutes (1975).
After pleading not guilty to all three charges, the case proceeded to non-jury trial in the county court. At the conclusion of the trial, petitioner-cross-respondent was found guilty on all three charges, fined $250.00 on each charge and sentenced to 30 days each on the shoplifting and resisting arrest convictions, sentences to run consecutively. On appeal, the circuit court sitting in its appellate capacity affirmed both the reckless driving1 and shoplifting convictions. The resisting arrest without force conviction was reversed on the ground that no probable cause existed at the time to arrest petitioner-cross-respondent, thus making the arrest illegal.
Having carefully considered the record, briefs and arguments of counsel it is our opinion that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law in affirming petitioner-cross-respondent’s conviction for petit larceny in that respondent-cross-petitioner failed to prove the requisite ownership or superior possession of the alleged stolen property in one other than petitioner-cross-respondent. Simkovitz v. State, 340 So. 2d 959 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Johnson v. State, 190 So. 2d 601 (Fla.3d DCA 1966).
As for the cross-petition for certiorari directed to that portion of the order which reversed petitioner-cross-respondent’s conviction for resisting arrest without violence, no departure from the essential requirements of law has been shown.
Accordingly, the petition for certiorari is hereby granted and the petit larceny conviction is quashed. Cross-petition for certiorari is denied.
Petition for certiorari granted; cross-petition denied.
. The reckless driving conviction is not a part of this petition for certiorari and as such, will not be reviewed by this court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LEE v. State, 368 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…be made without a warrant, as was the purported arrest involved here. In my opinion, this point has merit. Lee’s defense in this case, which was an absolute one to the charge of resisting without violence, Morley v. State, supra; Adlington v. State, 350 So. 2d 1148 (Fla.3d DCA 1977), was that he had peacefully resisted an illegal arrest. It was therefore essential that the jury be told whether, under the law of Florida, the arrest in question at the trial was lawful or not. The trial court’s denial of the requ…1 / 3
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 190 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Simkovitz v. State, 340 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)