STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
IVORY WILLIAMS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The State appealed a trial court's dismissal of a theft information charging Williams with obtaining clothing worth $100 or more in violation of Florida Statute 812.014. The appellate court reversed, holding that the information adequately alleged the unlawful intent required for theft by stating Williams intended to appropriate the property to their own use or that of someone not entitled to it.
The court held that an allegation of intent to appropriate property to one's own use or to another not entitled thereto is equated with unlawful intent to deprive the owner of the property. Additionally, the court held that alleging violation of a statute implicitly alleges unlawful conduct.
[1] An information alleging an intent to appropriate property to one's own use or the use of a person not entitled thereto sufficiently alleges the unlawful intent to deprive…
[2] Charging a violation of a specific statute is equivalent to alleging that the defendant acted unlawfully.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“an intent to appropriate property to the use of one other than the owner is equated with the unlawful intent to deprive the owner of his property”
Establishes that the statutory language regarding appropriation of property satisfies the unlawful intent requirement for theft
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was charged with knowingly obtaining or using clothing valued at $100 or more belonging to James Lusink, with intent to temporarily or perman…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Theft Statute Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
The state appeals from an order dismissing an Information which charged that appellee
... did, in violation of Florida Statute 812.014, knowingly obtain or use, or endeavor to obtain or use clothing, of a value of ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100.00) or more, the property of another, to wit: JAMES LUSINK, as owner or custodian thereof, with the intent to temporarily or permanently deprive said owner or custodian of a right to the property or a benefit therefrom, and to appropriate the property to their own use or to the use of a person not entitled thereto.
The basis of the trial court’s order dismissing the information is that “The information fails to allege an ‘unlawful’ taking or intent to deprive.” We disagree.
In State v. McNeill, 407 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), the court examined the sufficiency of an Information charging a violation of the same statute as the one allegedly violated here. In McNeill, the trial court dismissed the Information based on the state’s failure to include an allegation that there was specific intent to permanently deprive the victim of his property. The court of appeal reversed the dismissal and instructed the trial court to reinstate the Information. The court concluded that an allegation of “... an intent to appropriate property to the use of one other than the owner is equated with the unlawful intent to deprive the owner of his property.” 407 So. 2d at 1022.
The instant case is similar to McNeill. Appellee contends that without an allegation of an unlawful taking, the Information fails to allege the requisite specific criminal intent. However, as in McNeill, the Information against appellee alleges an intent “... to appropriate the property to their own use or the use of a person not entitled thereto.” We agree with the Fourth District Court of Appeal and conclude that this language is equated with the unlawful intent to deprive the owner of his property.
Even if we did not conclude as above stated, we would reverse the order dismissing the Information in this case. The Information charged that appellee acted “... in violation of Florida Statute 812.014...” This is the same as an allegation that appellee acted unlawfully. See McCaskill v. State, 55 Fla. 117, 45 So. 843 (1908); Schley v. State, 48 Fla. 53, 37 So. 518 (1904).
The order dismissing the Information is reversed. The case is remanded to the trial court with instructions to reinstate the Information and for further appropriate proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Schley v. State, 48 Fla. 53 (Fla. 1904)
- McCaskill v. State, 55 Fla. 117 (Fla. 1908)
- State v. McNEILL, 407 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)