Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Patten v. State
Citations: 492 So. 2d 748; 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1670Docket: 85-2004
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; August 1, 1986; Florida; State Appellate Court
Harvey Lewis Patten was convicted of grand theft, while the jury acquitted him of burglary. The case stemmed from the theft of items from Bertha S. Olinger’s auction house, which she discovered open the morning after a midnight closing. Missing items included new bicycles and toys, as well as a used grinder that had previously malfunctioned. At an auction in Dade City on January 13, 1985, Thomas Lambert identified Patten as a participant who sold items matching those reported stolen, including two bicycles and a smoking grinder. Wayne Jordan, who purchased several items from Patten at that auction, alerted law enforcement after recognizing them as stolen. Detective Van Gesen recovered these items, which Olinger confirmed as hers. Patten claimed he bought the items at a flea market from an unidentified Georgia man who was leaving the state and had no receipts to prove the purchase. On appeal, Patten argued that the evidence was purely circumstantial and insufficient for conviction. However, the court affirmed the conviction, citing Florida Statutes § 812.022(2), which states that possession of recently stolen property creates a presumption of knowledge of its stolen nature unless adequately explained, leaving the determination of knowledge to the jury. The court referenced prior case law to support its decision. To establish the criminal liability of the appellee, the state must prove that the items were stolen and that the accused was involved in their sale. If this is demonstrated, the burden shifts to the accused to provide a reasonable explanation for their possession and sale to avoid conviction. The theft statute, specifically section 812.014(1)(a) and (b), indicates that a felonious taking can be attributed to subsequent purchasers or possessors. The statute defines theft as knowingly obtaining or using another's property with the intent to deprive the owner of their rights or to appropriate the property for personal use. The appellant can be deemed to have committed grand theft through possession alone, irrespective of whether they physically took the items from the auction house. The trial court's finding of guilt for grand theft is affirmed; however, the case is remanded for resentencing due to the improper rationale used for departing from sentencing guidelines. The court erroneously considered the appellant's prior offenses, already factored into the presumptive sentence, and referenced pending charges, which is not permissible under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(11), as it prohibits using prior arrests without convictions as reasons for guideline deviations. Consequently, the sentencing aspect is reversed and remanded for adherence to the guidelines. The decision is affirmed in part and reversed in part.