HONORIO MONTANEZ, 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.
Honorio Montanez was convicted of grand larceny of a motor vehicle, but the court reversed because the stolen property—a Caterpillar motor grader—does not meet the statutory definition of a 'motor vehicle' under Florida law. The court held that the State failed to prove an essential element of the crime.
A Caterpillar motor grader is not a 'motor vehicle' as defined in Florida law because it is not operated over public highways and streets and cannot be licensed for such operation. The State failed to prove this essential element of the crime, and therefore the conviction cannot stand.
[1] A motor grader is not a "motor vehicle" as defined by Florida Statutes Sections 320.01(1)(a) and 520.02(1) because it is not operated over public highways and streets and…
[2] The State bears the burden of proving every element of a criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Clearly, under statutory definitions, the Caterpillar motor grader is not a 'motor vehicle.'”
Establishes the core holding that the stolen property does not meet the legal definition required for the charge
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Honorio Montanez was charged with grand larceny of a motor vehicle. A jury found him guilty and he was sentenced to five years probation (si…
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 Motor Vehicle Definition cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant Honorio Montanez was charged by information with grand larceny of a motor vehicle in violation of Section 812.-021, Florida Statutes (1977). A jury found him guilty of the charge and he was sentenced to five years probation, six months of which were to be served in jail, and a $5,000 fine.
The stolen property referred to in the charging document is a Caterpillar motor grader which appellant contends is not a “motor vehicle” as defined in Sections 320.-01(l)(a) and 520.02(1), Florida Statutes (1977). He argues that the State failed to prove each and every element of the crime charged and therefore his conviction of [*MLXI] grand larceny cannot stand. We agree and reverse the judgment and sentence appealed.
“Motor vehicle” is defined in Section 320.-01(l)(a) as:
(a) Automobiles, motorcycles, motor trucks, trailers, semitrailers,- tractor trailer combinations, and all other vehicles operated over the public streets and highways of this state and used as a means of transporting persons or property over the public streets and highways and propelled by power other than muscular power, but does not include traction engines, road rollers, such vehicles as run only upon a track, bicycles, or ‘mopeds,’ as defined in subsection 316.003(2). (emphasis supplied)
A similar definition in Section 520.02(1) states:
(1) ‘Motor vehicle’ means any device or vehicle, including automobiles, motorcycles, motor trucks, trailers, and all other vehicles operated over the public highways and streets of this state and propelled by power other than muscular power, but does not include traction engines, road rollers, implements of husbandry and other agricultural equipment and such vehicles as run only upon a track.
Appellant correctly maintains that a motor grader is not a vehicle “operated over the public highways and streets of this state.” Moreover, one cannot obtain a vehicle license to operate this type of equipment on the public highways. A motor grader does, however, depend on a traction engine for locomotion. Clearly, under statutory definitions, the Caterpillar motor grader is not a “motor vehicle.”
It is a well established principle that the State has the burden in a criminal case of proving each and every element of the crime charged to a degree beyond a reasonable doubt. With this rule in mind, we have reviewed the entire record before us and find a complete absence of evidence on the issue. The State simply did not deal with the element of establishing that the motor grader was a motor vehicle as charged.
We therefore hold that the judgment and sentence appealed in this cause should be and are hereby reversed.
RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.J.S. v. State, 453 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…argued that because sections 316.003(21) and 322.01 provide definitions which broadly include every vehicle which is self-propelled, the backhoe should be deemed a motor vehicle within the statutory definition of a conveyance. In Montanez v. State, 377 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), Montanez was charged and convicted of grand theft of a motor vehicle after he stole a Caterpillar motor grader. This court held that a motor grader is not a motor vehicle under the statutory definition of section 320.01(l)(a), Fl…
-
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 765 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…under Florida’s motor vehicle registration law. Cf. Crane Rental of Orlando, Inc. v. Hausman, 518 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (noting that a self-propelled crane is not a motor vehicle for purposes of the registration statute); Montanez v. State, 377 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (holding that a motor grader is not a motor vehicle for purposes of the registration statute). Auto-Owners argues that, because the forklift is not required to be registered in Florida, the provision for coverage of “registered m…