T.H. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

T.H. v. State

658 So. 2d 1161, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 8264, 1995 WL 456258

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 2, 1995

DocketNo. 94-01402

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 658 So. 2d 1161 (T.H. 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

T.H. v. State, 658 So. 2d 1161, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 8264, 1995 WL 456258 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

T.H. appeals an adjudication of delinquency for the offenses of trespass in a conveyance and possession of burglary tools. We affirm the adjudication based on the finding of trespass in a conveyance but reverse the finding that T.H. possessed burglary tools.

T.H. was arrested after fleeing from the passenger’s seat of a stolen vehicle. The arresting officer discovered a pair of socks underneath T.H. during the arrest. T.H. was not wearing the socks at the time of his arrest, and the state introduced evidence that he intended to use the socks to wipe fingerprints from the interior of the vehicle. The trial court found that these socks were burglary tools and adjudicated the defendant delinquent.

The supreme court has held that socks are “items of personal apparel” that do not fall within the definition of burglary tools in section 810.06, Florida Statutes (1993). Green v. State, 604 So.2d 471 (Fla.1992); see also Mitchell v. State, 657 So.2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). The state argues that Green controls only when the apparel is worn for its intended use. We do not find language in that case which limits the holding to those instances. Rather, Green holds that section 810.06 does not contain a definition of burglary tools sufficient to encompass items of personal apparel even if they are actually used to prevent fingerprint evidence.

Affirmed as modified.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

T.H. appeals an adjudication of delinquency for the offenses of trespass in a conveyance and possession of burglary tools. We affirm the adjudication based on the finding of trespass in a conveyance but reverse the finding that T.H. possessed burglary tools.

T.H. was arrested after fleeing from the passenger’s seat of a stolen vehicle. The arresting officer discovered a pair of socks underneath T.H. during the arrest. T.H. was not wearing the socks at the time of his arrest, and the state introduced evidence that he intended to use the socks to wipe fingerprints from the interior of the vehicle. The trial court found that these socks were burglary tools and adjudicated the defendant delinquent.

The supreme court has held that socks are “items of personal apparel” that do not fall within the definition of burglary tools in section 810.06, Florida Statutes (1993). Green v. State, 604 So.2d 471 (Fla.1992); see also Mitchell v. State, 657 So.2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). The state argues that Green controls only when the apparel is worn for its intended use. We do not find language in that case which limits the holding to those instances. Rather, Green holds that section 810.06 does not contain a definition of burglary tools sufficient to encompass items of personal apparel even if they are actually used to prevent fingerprint evidence.

Affirmed as modified.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

658 So. 2d 1161, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 8264, 1995 WL 456258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/th-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack