WALTON NEEDHAM SEILER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Walton Needham Seiler was convicted of grand theft for retaining examination administration fees as a county employee. The appellate court reversed the conviction, finding insufficient evidence that the fees belonged to the county, an essential element of grand theft.
The conviction is reversed because the state failed to prove an essential element of grand theft—that the property obtained belonged to the county. The evidence established authorization and fee collection but not that the county had a right to the money or that there was an expectation Seiler would turn over the fees.
[1] A conviction for grand theft requires proof that the property obtained belonged to the alleged victim.
[2] A county employee authorized to conduct examinations and collect fees is not guilty of theft if there is no evidence that the county expected or had a right to those fees…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“His conviction is reversed because there is no proof of an essential element of the crime of grand theft; that being that the property he used or obtained belonged to the county.”
The court's holding establishing the fatal defect in the prosecution's case—lack of proof of county ownership of the fees.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSeiler was authorized by the county to administer licensing qualification examinations and was employed as a county employee (building inspector, Dire…
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 Grand Theft Elements cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a conviction for grand theft.
Briefly stated, appellant was authorized by the county to conduct examinations for licensing qualification in its own behalf. At the same time he was an employee of the county. Before becoming the County Administrator in 1984, he had been a building inspector, the Director of Building and Zoning and the Chief Building Inspector. The fees charged for administering the examinations were kept by appellant and were not turned over to the county. Because of this, the state attorney charged appellant with theft.
The state attorney alleged that appellant criminally obtained money (the fees) from the county. Numerous witnesses testified for the state and a rather lengthy trial ensued to attempt to prove the state’s attorney’s allegations against appellant. It was amply shown and never denied that the county requested and authorized appellant to administer the exams. It was shown that he collected the fees and that he kept the money. It was never shown that it was ever expected of him, let alone required of him, to turn over the fees to the county, or that the county even had a right to the money. Although a former county commissioner said he “assumed any profit was turned in to the county,” there is no evidence that there was such an expectation between appellant and the county. To the contrary, it was quite clear appellant was acting in a separate capacity in a private enterprise, just as had the current contractor for these services, a company called Block and Associates.
If the county wanted the fees then it should have made that clear. What is clear is that there was no county ordinance permitting the county to collect the fees, and what was to be done with them if collected. We have no knowledge regarding why these charges were brought and why this county employee was taken down the track he was taken, but the train stops here. His conviction is reversed because there is no proof of an essential element of the crime of grand theft; that being that the property he used or obtained belonged to the county. § 812.014(1), Fla.Stat. (1985).
Because of our above disposition we have no need to discuss the conduct of the trial attorney for the state who made improper inflammatory, reversible comments to the jury.
The judgment is reversed.
REVERSED.
SHARP, C.J., and COWART, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walton Needham Seiler v. State, 534 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…rder of restitution. Appellant was ordered to pay to Marion County a sum of money which the trial court determined he had stolen from the county. Because we reversed the theft conviction we also reverse the order of restitution. See Seiler v. State, 522 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). SHARP, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.…
-
Isenhour v. State, 952 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…n fact, no witness for the State testified that any person or entity had an interest in the money superior to Isenhour’s at any time, let alone during the dates alleged in the Information. This was a fatal flaw, just as occurred in Seiler v. State, 522 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), wherein this court reversed the county building inspector’s conviction for grand theft where he had conducted licensing examinations and had kept the fees he received from applicants rather than turn the fees over to .the county…