K.W. v. State
| Decision Date | 17 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-1799,84-1799 |
| Citation | 468 So.2d 368,10 Fla. L. Weekly 1017 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1017 K.W., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
J. Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Amelia G. Brown and Douglas S. Connor, Asst. Public Defenders, Tampa, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Davis G. Anderson, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
K.W., a juvenile, challenges the trial court's order finding him guilty of the offense of possessing burglary tools and placing him on community control.
K.W. was charged with being delinquent for having violated section 810.06, Florida Statutes (1983), which provides:
Whoever has in his possession any tool, machine, or implement with intent to use the same, or allow the same to be used, to commit any burglary or trespass shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree ...
The only evidence offered against K.W. at the adjudicatory hearing was the testimony of Deputy William Nelson of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office. Deputy Nelson observed K.W. in the early hours of April 15, 1984, "messing around" with an automatic bank teller machine and looking through garbage cans at a shopping center. The officer sent the juvenile home, but as he walked away, Deputy Nelson observed an object protruding from his pocket. He then stopped and frisked K.W. The frisk yielded a knife, a pair of wire cutters, and a bag of change. The deputy then checked the area but found the bank machine showed no signs of any attempted entry and that no machines or businesses in the area had been burglarized.
On the basis of Deputy Nelson's testimony, the trial judge found K.W. to be delinquent for having violated section 810.06. The court withheld adjudication and placed him on community control.
The items found on K.W. are household tools or tools of everyday use. Since they are not contraband per se, it is only the possession of such implements along with a criminal intent or usage that constitutes a punishable offense. As we noted in Preston v. State, 373 So.2d 451 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So.2d 1203 (Fla.1980), in such instances it is necessary for the state to present evidence of an item's actual use in burglary or attempted burglary to establish the requisite criminal intent. See also James v. State, 452 So.2d 1048 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Hubbell v. State, 446 So.2d 175 (Fla. 5th DCA), ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. State
...We have for review State v. Thomas, 508 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), based on express and direct conflict with K.W. v. State, 468 So.2d 368 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), and Preston v. State, 373 So.2d 451 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So.2d 1203 (Fla.1980). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, §......
-
State v. Anderson, 90-101
...pliers and flashlights are "tools of everyday use," possession alone is not evidence of a crime. He relies on K.W. v. State, 468 So.2d 368 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) for the proposition that the state must present evidence of an item's actual use in a burglary or attempted burglary. In K.W. v. Stat......
-
State v. Thomas, 4-86-0800
...interpretation of the statute is based upon a line of cases from the second district court of appeal, exemplified by K.W. v. State, 468 So.2d 368 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). That court's reasoning, in turn, is apparently based upon a statement by the supreme court, in a somewhat different context, ......