Segal v. State, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 17441

Appellant was convicted of grand theft for a contract to construct kitchen cabinets following a deposit from the homeowner.
The contract, signed July 10, 2007, contemplated 30-inch cabinets; the homeowner paid $3,879 to appellant personally (endorsed to his mother’s account).
Appellant failed to perform by not installing cabinets or removing the drop ceiling as promised; communication deteriorated after signing.
The homeowner removed the drop ceiling and prepared the site; appellant later claimed health-related absence and claimed some cabinet modifications were rejected.
Evidence showed funds moving from appellant’s mother’s account to rent and to appellant’s company; some checks were returned for insufficient funds; no cabinets were installed.
On appeal, the court held the state failed to prove felonious intent at the time of taking and reversed, directing vacation of the conviction and sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the state proved felonious intent at taking	Segal argues the evidence shows a contractual undertaking with nonperformance rather than intent to steal	State contends it was continuing theft or misrepresentation to induce the deposit	No felonious intent proved; conviction vacated

Crawford v. State, 453 So.2d 1139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (distinguishes intent when some performance occurs vs. none)
Martin v. State, 379 So.2d 179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (no felonious intent where deposit used civilly and some performance not undertaken)
Brewer v. State, 413 So.2d 1217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (conduct after taking indicates intent to steal; no performance evidenced)
Yerrick v. State, 979 So.2d 1228 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (partial performance negates felonious intent)
Adams v. State, 443 So.2d 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (no felonious intent where ongoing business failed and no concealment)
Stramaglia v. State, 603 So.2d 536 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (intent must exist at time of taking; future act promised may not suffice)