Ellis v. State
157 So. 3d 467
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- At ~11:08 p.m. on Sept. 24, 2012, a 911 caller reported a burglary by two black males; deputies located two black males running away nearby.
- Corporal Schmick later encountered Ellis inside a gated apartment complex around 11:36 p.m.; Ellis paced near a closed vehicular gate, briefly entered an adjacent building, then exited through a pedestrian gate and walked toward the officer.
- Ellis was sweaty, muddy, and had a small wrist laceration; he admitted he did not live in the complex and said he was "cutting through." The officer thought Ellis matched the suspect description.
- Ellis was arrested; a search incident to arrest recovered two cell phones and a bracelet stolen in the earlier burglary.
- Trial resulted in convictions for burglary of an unoccupied dwelling, grand theft (from a dwelling), and loitering/prowling. On appeal, the court reviewed sufficiency of evidence for loitering/prowling and proof of value for grand theft.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loitering/prowling: whether State proved both statutory elements (unusual loitering and circumstances creating reasonable alarm of imminent harm) | State: Ellis's presence, behavior, and match to BOLO supported reasonable alarm and imminent threat | Ellis: Conduct showed he was trying to leave, not preparing to commit immediate additional crimes; no imminent threat shown | Reversed — State failed to prove reasonable alarm of imminent harm; prima facie case not shown |
| Grand theft: whether value of stolen items exceeded $100 | State: recovered items (two phones, bracelet) satisfy grand-theft element | Ellis: State presented no reliable evidence of value; minimal evidence only about one phone's prior purchase | Reversed — insufficient proof value ≥ $100; remanded to enter conviction/sentence for second-degree petit theft |
| Burglary conviction | State: sufficient evidence linking Ellis to burglary | Ellis: (challenged but not sustained) | Affirmed — burglary conviction and sentence upheld |
| Remedy on remand | State: grand theft should stand if value proven | Ellis: lower offense appropriate given record | Court ordered conversion to second-degree petit theft and remand for entry of conviction/sentence accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- W.D. v. State, 132 So. 3d 871 (recognizing loitering/prowling elements require imminent threat of future criminal activity)
- P.R. v. State, 97 So. 3d 980 (similar articulation of loitering/prowling elements)
- Mills v. State, 58 So. 3d 936 (both loitering elements must occur in officer's presence)
- McClamma v. State, 138 So. 3d 578 (suspicion of past theft insufficient to show intent to commit imminent harm)
- J.S. v. State, 147 So. 3d 608 (matching BOLO and proximity alone do not prove imminent threat for loitering adjudication)
- G.B. v. State, 123 So. 3d 660 (value-finding rules: trier may only find minimum value if value cannot be ascertained)
- Marrero v. State, 71 So. 3d 881 (explains impossibility standard for ascertaining value and rejects a mere lack of evidence as sufficient)