Moening v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Moening v. State

615 So. 2d 791, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 3088, 1993 WL 65667

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 12, 1993

DocketNo. 91-2732

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 615 So. 2d 791 (Moening v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moening v. State, 615 So. 2d 791, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 3088, 1993 WL 65667 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

COBB, Judge.

In the instant case, the evidence at trial failed to establish that the appellant, William Moening, who was charged with second degree grand theft, had stolen in excess of $20,000.00; rather, the evidence supported a conviction for the theft of [792]*792some $16,800.00. Moreover, the trial court’s use of the grounds of “premeditation or calculation” for purposes of a departure sentence was improper since it is inherent in the crime of theft that a defendant intends — i.e., calculates and premeditates — to convert the property of another to his own use. See State v. Obojes, 604 So.2d 474 (Fla.1992).

Accordingly, the judgment and sentence of the trial court are reversed and this cause is remanded for entry of a judgment of guilt to a third degree felony and imposition of an appropriate sentence therefor.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

W. SHARP and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

COBB, Judge.

In the instant case, the evidence at trial failed to establish that the appellant, William Moening, who was charged with second degree grand theft, had stolen in excess of $20,000.00; rather, the evidence supported a conviction for the theft of [792]*792some $16,800.00. Moreover, the trial court’s use of the grounds of “premeditation or calculation” for purposes of a departure sentence was improper since it is inherent in the crime of theft that a defendant intends — i.e., calculates and premeditates — to convert the property of another to his own use. See State v. Obojes, 604 So.2d 474 (Fla.1992).

Accordingly, the judgment and sentence of the trial court are reversed and this cause is remanded for entry of a judgment of guilt to a third degree felony and imposition of an appropriate sentence therefor.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

W. SHARP and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

615 So. 2d 791, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 3088, 1993 WL 65667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moening-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack