Michael v. State
2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 19789
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Robert Michael was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and sentenced accordingly.
- Michael challenged the sufficiency of the evidence at trial to sustain the conviction.
- The court agrees with Michael that Munoz v. State would require a reversal with an instruction to convict the lesser charge of burglary of an unoccupied structure, under the facts here.
- The statute defines a dwelling as a structure designed to be occupied for lodging at night, even if temporarily uninhabitable.
- The Munoz majority added an element requiring habitation at the offense date; the dissent argued Perkins does not import that element.
- The record showed evidence of unauthorized entry into the curtilage and attempted entry into the dwelling, supported by eyewitness and circumstantial testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the burglary statute require habitation at the time of the offense? | Michael argues the statute requires habitable dwelling at offense. | State (Munoz line) contends habitation is not required by statute. | Statute unambiguous; habitation at offense date not required. |
| Is the evidence sufficient to support burglary of the dwelling or curtilage? | Evidence insufficient to prove entry into dwelling/curtilage. | Eyewitness and circumstantial evidence show unauthorized entry into curtilage and attempted entry into the dwelling. | Evidence legally sufficient to sustain conviction. |
| Should the decision conflict with Munoz be resolved by affirming the conviction? | Conflict with Munoz would require reversal for lesser charge. | Court may uphold the conviction and certify conflict with Munoz. | Affirmed; conflict certified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Munoz v. State, 937 So.2d 686 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (course of statutory interpretation discussed)
- Perkins v. State, 682 So.2d 1083 (Fla.1996) (implication of additional element for habitation)
- Baker v. State, 636 So.2d 1342 (Fla.1994) (statutory language reserved for legislature; court cannot modify)
- Dukes v. State, 796 So.2d 1265 (Fla.4th DCA 2001) (entry into curtilage completes burglary of dwelling or curtilage)
- McDonald v. Roland, 65 So.2d 12 (Fla.1953) (statutory interpretation and policy considerations)
- Nesbitt v. State, 819 So.2d 993 (Fla.5th DCA 2002) (ineffective assistance preservation discussion)
- Eure v. State, 764 So.2d 798 (Fla.2d DCA 2000) (ineffectiveness-preservation context)
- Perkins v. State, 682 So.2d 1083 (Fla.1996) (discourse on whether habitable element is required)