Young v. State
141 So. 3d 161
| Fla. | 2013Background
- Eric M. Young entered a house under renovation where a drywall worker was present, displayed a gun, took the victim’s phone, keys and wallet, and left in the victim’s truck. The victim later identified Young and the truck was recovered in his possession.
- Young was charged with burglary of a dwelling, robbery with a firearm, carjacking with a firearm, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon; jury convicted him of burglary of a dwelling (with assault/battery with a dangerous weapon), robbery with a weapon, and carjacking with a dangerous weapon.
- The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed Young’s burglary and carjacking convictions and certified conflict with the Second District in Munoz on whether a structure undergoing substantial renovation qualifies as a “dwelling.”
- Young sought review raising two principal issues: (1) whether a building under renovation is a “dwelling” under section 810.011(2), and (2) whether carjacking requires the use of force contemporaneous with the vehicle taking (conflict with Flores).
- The Florida Supreme Court approved the Fifth District’s rulings, holding that a structure retains "dwelling" status if its character/purpose for human lodging remains despite renovations, and that the force used to obtain keys inside the dwelling was "in the course of the taking" the vehicle (carjacking).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State/Young) | Defendant's Argument (Young) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a structure undergoing substantial renovation qualifies as a "dwelling" under § 810.011(2) | (State) The house retained its character/purpose as a residential dwelling despite renovations; thus burglary of a dwelling applies | (Young) The house was temporarily unsuitable for lodging (a construction site) and therefore not a dwelling under Munoz | The Court held the statute looks to design/character (purpose for habitation); renovations do not defeat "dwelling" status unless the character is substantially changed so it is no longer for lodging; affirmed conviction and disapproved Munoz |
| Whether force used inside a building (to obtain keys) can support a carjacking when vehicle is taken outside later | (State) Taking keys by force/putting in fear inside, then immediately using them to take the vehicle, is a continuous series of acts "in the course of the taking" | (Young) Force was used only during robbery inside; the later taking of the vehicle outside was disconnected and thus not carjacking (relying on Flores) | The Court held the intimidation/force to obtain keys and the subsequent taking of the vehicle constituted a continuous series of acts satisfying § 812.133; affirmed carjacking conviction and disapproved Flores |
Key Cases Cited
- Perkins v. State, 682 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 1996) (statutory definition of “dwelling” rests on design/character for habitation rather than actual occupancy)
- Munoz v. State, 937 So.2d 686 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (held a gutted house undergoing reconstruction was not a dwelling — disapproved to the extent inconsistent)
- Flores v. State, 853 So.2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (held force used during an interior robbery was too disconnected from later vehicle taking to support carjacking — disapproved to the extent inconsistent)
- Young v. State, 73 So.3d 825 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (district court decision under review affirming burglary and carjacking convictions)
- Michael v. State, 51 So.3d 574 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (house undergoing interior renovations held to be a dwelling)
- Carter v. State, 28 So.3d 1238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (use of force that led victim to flee was sufficiently intertwined with vehicle taking to support carjacking)