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.
State v. Breed
Citations: 230 Ariz. 462; 286 P.3d 806; 645 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 7; 2012 Ariz. App. LEXIS 169Docket: No. 1 CA-CR 11-0651
Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona; October 16, 2012; Arizona; State Appellate Court
Jeremy Joseph Breed appeals his conviction for unlawful use of means of transportation under A.R.S. § 13-1803(A)(1) and challenges the trial court's ruling that this offense is a lesser-included offense of theft of means of transportation under A.R.S. § 13-1814(A)(5). Breed borrowed a vehicle from L.G. with the agreement to return it within an hour and a half but failed to do so, leading L.G. to report it as stolen after several days. Breed was later charged with theft of means of transportation, but a jury found him guilty of the lesser offense of unlawful use, resulting in a five-year prison sentence. The court reviews the classification of lesser-included offenses de novo, determining if the lesser crime contains some but not all elements of the greater crime. The elements of theft of means of transportation under A.R.S. § 13-1814(A)(5) include knowingly controlling another's vehicle without lawful authority while knowing or having reason to know it is stolen. In contrast, unlawful use under A.R.S. § 13-1803(A)(1) involves knowingly taking unauthorized control of another's vehicle without the intent to permanently deprive. Breed contends that the two offenses are too similar to warrant distinction. However, the court agrees with the State’s position that unlawful use consists of the first three elements of the theft statute but lacks the fourth element regarding knowledge of the property being stolen. The court finds that while the phrasing differs, both offenses criminalize the same conduct regarding control and authority over the vehicle. Thus, the court affirms the trial court’s ruling that unlawful use is a lesser-included offense of theft of means of transportation. The distinction between theft of means of transportation and unlawful use lies in the required mental state for each offense. Theft necessitates that the state prove the individual knew or should have known the vehicle was stolen, whereas unlawful use only requires knowledge that the vehicle's use was unauthorized. If a person is aware or should be aware that a vehicle is stolen, they inherently know that their use of it is unauthorized. Thus, unlawful use under A.R.S. 13-1803(A)(1) is classified as a lesser-included offense of theft of means of transportation under A.R.S. 13-1814(A)(5), as committing the latter inherently involves committing the former. This aligns with precedents established in cases such as State v. Larson and State v. Griest. The court affirmed Breed’s conviction, noting that the phrase "without intent to permanently deprive" in the unlawful use statute is not an element the state needs to prove, but rather serves to differentiate unlawful use from auto theft. Breed's appeal solely contended that unlawful use is not a lesser-included offense, without disputing the evidence supporting the jury instruction on unlawful use, which the court found sufficient.