Colbert v. State, 49 So. 3d 819

Defendant Colbert appeals his conviction and sentence for multiple offenses including robbery with a deadly weapon, armed burglary, leaving the scene of an accident with damages, attempted carjacking with a deadly weapon, carjacking with a deadly weapon, kidnapping with intent to commit robbery/burglary, and kidnapping of a child under fourteen.
The robbery involved smashing the front glass of a public jewelry counter, grabbing jewelry, and fleeing; the counter front/top were glass, back/bottom solid, and the interior was not accessible to the public.
Defendant later abandoned a struck truck, forced entry into a drive-thru vehicle with a woman and two children, and drove off for 80–45 minutes before abandoning the vehicle in Belle Glade.
At trial, the jury denied a judgment of acquittal on burglary; the issue centered on whether the area opened to the public included the interior of the jewelry case.
The trial court denied the motion for judgment of acquittal; the appellate court reviews such denial de novo and found insufficient evidence for burglary under the open-to-public theory.
The court also held the evidence insufficient to prove the attended/driver presence element for leaving the scene of an accident, reversing that conviction and related burglary conviction, while affirming other convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the jewelry case burglary is proven where the area was open to the public	Colbert argues public access to the store makes burglary impossible.	Colbert argues the interior of the jewelry case was not open to the public, so burglary stands or falls on the open-to-public defense.	Burglary reversed; area open to public cannot sustain entering a structure to access the case interior.
Whether leaving the scene of an accident was proven when the struck car was unattended	State contends the car was attended via later contact with owner/employee.	Owner was not present; unattended vehicle should fulfill the statute through leaving a note rather than pursuit.	Leaving scene reversed; no attended vehicle element under §316.061(1).
Whether the remaining charges, apart from burglary and leaving the scene, are valid	State argues remaining counts are supported by the record.	Colbert challenges the sufficiency of evidence across other counts as well.	Convictions on other counts affirmed; only burglary and leaving-the-scene convictions reversed.

Miller v. State, 733 So.2d 955 (Fla.1998) (open-to-public defense governs burglary when area behind counter not open)
Johnson v. State, 786 So.2d 1162 (Fla.2001) (jury must decide whether area behind counter was open to public)
Collett v. State, 676 So.2d 1046 (Fla.1st DCA 1996) (alcove open to public does not automatically sustain burglary conviction)
Vrchota, Corp. v. Kelly, 42 So.3d 319 (Fla.4th DCA 2010) (absurd-result doctrine in unattended/unattended vehicle context)
Dumais v. State, 40 So.3d 850 (Fla.4th DCA 2010) (review of denial of judgment of acquittal is de novo)
F.B. v. State, 852 So.2d 226 (Fla.2003) (fundamental error standard when evidence is insufficient)