Stephens v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stephens v. State

78 So. 3d 686, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 1041, 2012 WL 245447

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 27, 2012

Docket5D10-1794

StatusPublished

This text of 78 So. 3d 686 (Stephens 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

Stephens v. State, 78 So. 3d 686, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 1041, 2012 WL 245447 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

TORPY, J.

Appellant challenges his convictions and sentences for attempted burglary of a dwelling and resisting an officer without violence. We agree with Appellant that the lower court erred by admitting into evidence certain “tools” found in Appellant’s possession when he was apprehended shortly after the attempted burglary. The perpetrator gained entry through an open bathroom window and no property was taken from the residence. Therefore, the lower court improperly admitted Appellant’s duffle bag and some of its contents, as well as items found on Appellant’s person, because there was no evidence linking these items to the crime, either as instruments or fruits of the crime. See Lavallee v. State, 958 So.2d 509, 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (“[T]he evidence that appellant possessed a screwdriver and gloves shortly after the burglary, and most probably during the burglary, was irrelevant. There was simply no connection shown between appellant’s possession of the items and the crime charged.”). Accordingly, we reverse the attempted burglary conviction and remand for a new trial. We affirm the conviction for resisting arrest, concluding that the erroneous admission was harmless as it pertained to the resisting arrest conviction. See Simmons v. State, 552 So.2d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (affirming convictions for sale of cocaine, but reversing and remanding for new trial conviction for possession with intent to sell as error only affected that conviction).

We expressly reject Appellant’s contention that a judgment of acquittal should have been granted.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

SAWAYA and MONACO, JJ., concur.

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

TORPY, J.

Appellant challenges his convictions and sentences for attempted burglary of a dwelling and resisting an officer without violence. We agree with Appellant that the lower court erred by admitting into evidence certain “tools” found in Appellant’s possession when he was apprehended shortly after the attempted burglary. The perpetrator gained entry through an open bathroom window and no property was taken from the residence. Therefore, the lower court improperly admitted Appellant’s duffle bag and some of its contents, as well as items found on Appellant’s person, because there was no evidence linking these items to the crime, either as instruments or fruits of the crime. See Lavallee v. State, 958 So.2d 509, 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (“[T]he evidence that appellant possessed a screwdriver and gloves shortly after the burglary, and most probably during the burglary, was irrelevant. There was simply no connection shown between appellant’s possession of the items and the crime charged.”). Accordingly, we reverse the attempted burglary conviction and remand for a new trial. We affirm the conviction for resisting arrest, concluding that the erroneous admission was harmless as it pertained to the resisting arrest conviction. See Simmons v. State, 552 So.2d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (affirming convictions for sale of cocaine, but reversing and remanding for new trial conviction for possession with intent to sell as error only affected that conviction).

We expressly reject Appellant’s contention that a judgment of acquittal should have been granted.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

SAWAYA and MONACO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 So. 3d 686, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 1041, 2012 WL 245447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephens-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack