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.

Oviedo v. State

Citations: 879 So. 2d 682; 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 11743; 2004 WL 1778944Docket: No. 4D02-4381

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; August 11, 2004; Florida; State Appellate Court

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil
Oviedo's conviction for burglary of a dwelling is affirmed, but his habitual offender sentence is reversed due to insufficient evidence proving his qualification for enhanced sentencing. Oviedo argued that the evidence did not demonstrate that his entry was stealthy, which he claimed made the related jury instruction a fundamental error. The facts showed that at 5:00 a.m., officers responded to an alarm and found a van near broken sliding glass doors with two individuals moving appliances inside the home. Despite orders to stop, they fled, with Oviedo attempting to escape on foot. He was apprehended while wearing gloves and carrying a screwdriver and a razor knife. Evidence from the scene indicated that appliances were moved, the kitchen floor had water, and the alarm system was dismantled. The victim testified that he locked the house the previous day, with everything intact.

The trial court's jury instruction on stealthy entry was deemed appropriate, as the secluded location of the house could support a finding of stealth under the burglary statute. Oviedo did not object to this jury instruction, which precludes the classification of any potential error as fundamental. Regarding sentencing, while a prior conviction was introduced, Oviedo did not acknowledge its applicability to him, and there was no corroborating fingerprint evidence in the conviction records. The court affirms the conviction but reverses the habitual offender sentence, allowing the state the opportunity to prove Oviedo's identity related to the prior conviction for potential resentencing.