Dorsey v. State
| Decision Date | 23 December 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. Y--346,Y--346 |
| Citation | 324 So.2d 159 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Roger Lewis DORSEY and Donald Wayne Bennett, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and Michael J. Minerva, Asst. Public Defender, for appellants.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Carolyn M. Snurkowski, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
From the circumstantial evidence in this case the jury could properly have found that appellants are guilty of breaking and entering with intent to commit petit larceny. The more troublesome question is whether, on an information charging that appellants with requisite intent broke and entered 'a certain building located at 300 W. Tharpe Street, (Tallahassee) . . ., the property of Bill Peacock,' appellants may be convicted on proof that the building was located on land leased by Bill Peacock Leasing & Rental, Inc. See Alvarez v. State, 157 Fla. 254, 25 So.2d 661 (1946). There was testimony, albeit ambiguous, that 'the building belongs to Mr. Bill Peacock' and 'the property, I understand, is leased.' See generally 17 Fla.Jur. Improvements § 3 (1958). At any rate, since for present purposes ownership is any possession which is rightful as against those alleged to be burglars, we conceive that the sole corporate stockholder and operator of a corporate business is, as against burglars, the owner of the building used only for corporate business. See Johnson v. State, 293 So.2d 71 (Fla.1974); Harper v. State, 169 So.2d 512 (Fla.App.2d 1964), 172 So.2d 454 (Fla.1965).
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. State, 77-213
...possession which is rightful as against the burglar," Addison v. State, 95 Fla. 737, 741, 116 So. 629, 630 (1928); Dorsey v. State, 324 So.2d 159, 160 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), and is satisfied by "proof of special or temporary ownership, possession or control." Dees v. State, 99 Fla. 1144, 128 ......
-
M. E., In Interest of, 76-2016
...122 So.2d 34 (2 DCA 1960) which, again, seems to support appellant's contention in a persuasive manner. Then we have Dorsey v. State, 324 So.2d 159 (1 DCA 1975) and Sifford v. State, 202 So.2d 14 (3 DCA 1967) which are against It is our opinion the reason for specifically alleging and provi......
-
Adirim v. State, 76-1594
...(Fla.1928); Harper v. State, 169 So.2d 512, 515 (Fla.2d DCA 1964). See also Johnson v. State, 293 So.2d 71 (Fla.1974); Dorsey v. State, 324 So.2d 159 (Fla.1st DCA 1975). ,8] The purposes of the requirement of an allegation of ownership in a burglary charge are essentially twofold: (1) to pr......
-
Leo v. State, CC--132
...in burglary prosecutions 'ownership is any possession which is rightful as against those alleged to be burglars,' Dorsey v. State, 324 So.2d 159, 160 (Fla.1st DCA 1975), we hold that Food Haul, Inc.'s ownership or right to possess the stolen vehicle was sufficiently proved to withstand appe......