Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

359 So. 2d 545

Docket No. 77-870.

O'BRYAN v. State

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

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided May 31, 1978.

Rehearing Denied June 28, 1978.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1978-05-31

Relies on Anderson v. State · Dorsey v. State · In the Interest of M. E.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1978-05-31

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently January 2002

8 state decisions

301978198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*546 Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Frank B. Kessler, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

¶2Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Glenn H. Mitchell, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

¶3DOWNEY, Chief Judge.

¶4By 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.

¶5The 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.

¶6Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to discharge the appellant.

¶7REVERSED AND REMANDED with directions.

¶8CROSS and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.

NOTES

¶9[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).

/359/so2d/545 · .json · Public domain