Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

617 So. 2d 720

Docket No. 91-04222.

State v. Nesta

STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Darren James NESTA, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 26, 1993.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1993-02-26

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[o]ne who attempts to sell or sells stolen goods to a pawnbroker is not using the stolen items for his own personal use but has met the statutory requirements for dealing in stolen property.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Allwine v. State

Relies on 596 So. 2d 1055 - State v. Camp · 579 So. 2d 763 - State v. Camp · 559 So. 2d 742 - Bailey v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1993-02-26

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently August 2013

3 state decisions

10199320002010decided

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*721 Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Davis G. Anderson, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.

¶2James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Cecilia A. Traina, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4Appellee, Darren James Nesta, was charged with dealing in stolen property under section 812.019, Florida Statutes (1991). Appellee admitted stealing jewelry and selling it to a pawnbroker. He allegedly committed these acts to obtain money to buy food and intended to repurchase the items from the pawn shop. The trial court granted his motion to dismiss based on his argument that he had not violated the statute because he stole the item for his own personal use and did not intend to place the stolen property into the stream of commerce.

¶5We agree with the state that the charge should not have been dismissed. One who attempts to sell or sells stolen goods to a pawnbroker is not using the stolen items for his own personal use but has met the statutory requirements for dealing in stolen property. State v. Camp,579 So.2d 763 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), approved,596 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 1992); Bailey v. State,559 So.2d 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). We reverse and remand for reinstatement of the charge.

¶6Reversed and remanded.

¶7CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and HALL, JJ., concur.

/617/so2d/720 · .json · Public domain