A. L., A JUVENILE, 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.
A juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for burglary and petit larceny based on taking athletic equipment from a locked room at a park. The appellate court reversed because the state failed to establish the essential element of ownership—no evidence was presented showing who had lawful possession, custody, or control of either the room or the stolen property.
The state's failure to establish the essential element of ownership was fatal to the charges. The trial court erred in denying the juvenile's motion to dismiss because no evidence identified the person or entity with lawful possession, custody, or control of the athletic room or the stolen property.
[1] A conviction for burglary requires proof of ownership or lawful possession of the burglarized structure.
[2] A conviction for larceny requires proof of ownership or lawful possession of the stolen property.
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“No evidence was presented to establish, as alleged in the delinquency petition, that the Dade County Parks and Recreation Department had lawful possession, custody or control of either the athletic room or the athletic clothing which was taken therefrom.”
Establishes the fatal flaw in the state's case—the complete absence of proof regarding who held lawful possession of the property.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe juvenile was observed in a locked athletics equipment room at a Dade County park where he had no authority to be. When discovered by a park employ…
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 Delinquency Petition cases and more on FLexlaw
HUBBART, Judge.
A juvenile A.L. appeals an adjudication of delinquency for the offenses of burglary and petit larceny entered against him in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida. The juvenile contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the delinquency petition made at the close of the state’s case and renewed at the close of all the evidence at trial because the state failed to establish the essential element of “ownership” as to the alleged burglarized structure and the alleged stolen property on the charges of burglary and larceny. We agree and reverse with directions to discharge the juvenile.
The state filed a delinquency petition before the circuit court herein charging the juvenile in count I with the burglary of a certain athletics room, “the property of Dade County Parks and Recreation Department, as owner, tenant or lessee,” and in count II with the larceny of certain athletic clothing which was “in possession and lawful custody of Dade County Parks and Recreation Department.” The juvenile denied the charges and was tried before the court.
The evidence adduced at trial viewed in a light most favorable to the state establishes that on the date alleged in the petition herein the juvenile was observed in the athletic equipment room at a particular park in Dade County, Florida. The room was almost always kept locked and the juvenile had no authority to be there. When observed by a park employee, the juvenile ran from the room carrying with him certain athletic clothing and equipment. Later, the juvenile was apprehended, the property taken was recovered, and a confession was obtained from the juvenile as to the incident.
No evidence was presented to establish, as alleged in the delinquency petition, that the Dade County Parks and Recreation Department had lawful possession, custody or control of either the athletic room or the athletic clothing which was taken therefrom. In fact, no evidence was presented at all to identify the person or entity who had lawful possession, custody or control of the athletic room or the athletic clothing taken therefrom. Such a total failure of proof to establish the essential element of “ownership” (i. e. any possession which is lawful as against the accused) of the alleged burglarized structure and the alleged stolen property on the charges of burglary and larceny, as laid in the delinquency petition, is fatal to the state’s case. The trial court committed reversible error in denying the juvenile’s timely motion to dismiss the charges at trial. Smith v. State, 96 Fla. 30, 117 So. 377 (1928); State v. Ward, 354 So. 2d 125 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); Mitchell v. State, 317 So. 2d 465 (Fla.4th DCA 1975); Sifford v. State, 202 So. 2d 14 (Fla.3d DCA 1967); Haines v. State, 113 So. 2d 601 (Fla.2d DCA 1959). See also Anderson v. State, 356 So. 2d 382, 384-85 (Fla.3d DCA 1978).
The adjudication of delinquency is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court with directions to discharge the juvenile from the cause.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Foster v. State, 557 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…812.014, Florida Statutes (1987), the state must prove the ownership of the stolen property in one other than the defendant. R.C. v. State, 481 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); see also C.B. v. State, 519 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); A.L. v. State, 359 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Wilcox v. State, 183 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Nelson v. State, 453 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); O’Bryan v. State, 359 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Clara Suarez, the sole witness to testify as to ownership of the vehicl…
-
D.S.S. v. State, 850 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 2003)…See L.D.S. v. State, 784 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); In the Interest of M.M., 571 So. 2d 112 [(Fla. 4th DCA 1990)]. Moreover, in this case, we are not required to decide whether we agree with the analysis of the Third District in [A.L. v. State, 359 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) ], because that case involved an unnamed budding under circumstances that are not well explained in the opinion. This case involves a formally named public building of the sort that is a landmark in its community. The assistant p…
-
D.S.S. v. State, 806 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…School Board at the time of these offenses. It is undisputed that the State did not call a witness who directly testified that this public high school building was owned by a particular governmental entity. D.S.S. relies primarily on A.L. v. State, 359 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). In A.L., an adjudication of delinquency was reversed because the State failed to prove that an athletic room was the property of the Dade County Parks and Recreation Department. 359 So. 2d 583. As explained in In Interest of M.M…1 / 3
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Roy Smith alias Tom Green v. State, 96 Fla. 30 (Fla. 1928)
- I. v. Anderson, 356 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Mitchell v. State, 317 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Haines v. State, 113 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Guyton v. State, 202 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Sifford v. State, 202 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- State v. Ward, 354 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)