State v. Sapp
| Decision Date | 09 July 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-2405,85-2405 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1535 STATE of Florida, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Glen E. SAPP, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Ann Garrison Paschall, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant/cross-appellee.
Gerald W. Pierce of Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A., Fort Myers, and John Hathaway, Punta Gorda, for appellee/cross-appellant.
Appellant, the State of Florida, appeals the trial court's order granting appellee/cross-appellant's, Glen E. Sapp, motion for new trial. Appellee/cross-appellant cross-appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. We conclude that the trial court was in error in failing to grant appellee/cross-appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal and, therefore, reverse on the cross-appeal making it unnecessary to discuss the issue raised by appellant on appeal.
At all times pertinent to the issues involved in this appeal, appellee/cross-appellant was the sheriff of Charlotte County, Florida. Two indictments were returned by the grand jury of Charlotte County against appellee/cross-appellant. The first indictment involved in this appeal charged appellee/cross-appellant with grand theft in the second degree in violation of section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1983). The second indictment charged appellee/cross-appellant with violation of section 839.08, Florida Statutes (1983), in that while being a public officer he purchased supplies from himself in violation of the aforesaid statute.
The property which was the subject of the alleged purchase in the second indictment was a Cessna 150 aircraft in which appellee/cross-appellant had at one time owned an interest. The property which was the subject of the grand theft indictment was funds paid by Charlotte County, between the period of January 1, 1983 and April 1, 1984, pursuant to a lease of that same aircraft, and paid specifically for hangar rent, fuel, insurance, repairs and upkeep on the aircraft.
The evidence is undisputed that the Charlotte County Sheriff's Office had the exclusive use of the aircraft during the period of time relating to the grand theft indictment. The trial court, finding insufficient evidence in regard to the misdemeanor indictment involving the purchase of the aircraft, granted a motion of acquittal in regard to that indictment.
The facts essential to this appeal indicate that in March, 1981, appellee/cross-appellant and three other individuals who were deputy sheriff's purchased a Cessna 150 aircraft. The aircraft was to be used by the deputy sheriffs for the benefit of the sheriff's department. Appellee/cross-appellant and the other three owners, during this original period of time, paid for all insurance, maintenance, oil and hangar expenses. When the aircraft was used for law enforcement business by the Charlotte County Sheriff's Office, the sheriff's department paid only for the fuel used.
Ultimately, appellee/cross-appellant and the other owners of the aircraft determined that they could no longer afford to provide the aircraft to the sheriff's department at their own expense. Mr. Donald Rogers, who was often a benefactor of the Charlotte County Sheriff's Office, was approached to see if he would consider purchasing the aircraft and leasing it to the department. Mr. Rogers agreed to purchase the aircraft, and title was transferred to Rogers Seawall Company, in which Rogers was the principal interested party, on approximately January 1, 1983. The Charlotte County Sheriff's Department then leased the aircraft from Rogers Seawall under a written lease which provided that the sheriff's department would have the exclusive use of the aircraft and, in turn, would be required to pay for maintenance, hangar expenses, insurance and fuel. It is for those payments by the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kipping v. State, 95-04795
...converts them from legal to illegal activities? This is not the first time this court has reviewed such a situation. See State v. Sapp, 492 So.2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (sheriff not guilty of theft for selling airplane to a third party who leased it to the sheriff's department, absent showi......