O'BRYAN v. State

359 So. 2d 545
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 31, 1978
Docket77-870
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 359 So. 2d 545 (O'BRYAN 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
O'BRYAN v. State, 359 So. 2d 545 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Opinion

359 So.2d 545 (1978)

James Arthur O'BRYAN, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-870.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 31, 1978.
Rehearing Denied June 28, 1978.

*546 Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Frank B. Kessler, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Glenn H. Mitchell, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

DOWNEY, Chief Judge.

By amended information appellant was charged with burglary of a motor vehicle in violation of Section 810.02, Florida Statutes (1975). The information alleged the vehicle was "the property of Strazulla Brothers Co., Inc." The proof of ownership relied on by the State was adduced through Joseph P. Strazulla, President of Strazulla Brothers Co., Inc. He referred to the vehicle in question as "my girl's car" which he was driving on the occasion of the burglary. He also referred to the car as "my car" when describing the proximity of appellant's automobile to the vehicle in question.

The recent cases[1] holding that ownership is any possession that is rightful as against the burglar would seem to make it rather easy for the State to prove "ownership" of the burglarized property. However, the State still must prove the allegations as laid in the information. We find the proof here woefully inadequate.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to discharge the appellant.

REVERSED AND REMANDED with directions.

CROSS and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.

NOTES

[1] In the Interest of M.E., 357 So.2d 1052 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Anderson v. State, 356 So.2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Dorsey v. State, 324 So.2d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).

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

Related

D.S.S. v. State
806 So. 2d 554 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
In Interest of MM
571 So. 2d 112 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Brown v. State
561 So. 2d 1309 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Foster v. State
557 So. 2d 634 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
C.B. v. State
519 So. 2d 686 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
R.D. v. State
426 So. 2d 1293 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
359 So. 2d 545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/obryan-v-state-fladistctapp-1978.