Elvin W. Elder v. State of Florida
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2005 ELVIN W. ELDER, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. CASE NO. 4D03-4126 Opinion filed January 26, 2005 Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Richard L. Oftedal, Judge; L.T. Case No. 033427 CFA02. Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph A. Tringali, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee. KLEIN, J. Appellant was convicted of grand theft of an automobile, burglary of a conveyance, and petit theft. The trial court should have acquitted him of grand theft because there was no evidence that he took the automobile. Appellant was found by an officer - who had been informed that there was a car stripping in progress - attempting to remove a muffler from the car. In response to the offic er s questions, appellant advised that he did not own the vehicle and that he was removing the muffler for a friend. After being read his Miranda rights appellant, according to the officer, stated that he knew the vehicle had been stolen by another person. Appellant argues he could not be convicted of grand theft of the auto under State v. G.C., 572 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 1991). In G.C. the juvenile accepted a ride from a friend in a vehicle which he assumed was stolen because it had a broken steering column. Our supreme court held that the mere fact that he became a passenger after the vehicle was stolen, even if he knew it was stolen, would not support a conviction for theft. The element of depriving or appropriating the vehicle from the owner, section 812.014, Florida Statutes (2003), was not satisfied. In this case, as in G.C., there was no evidence that appellant committed any theft except for the muffler, which appellant admitted he was removing. We accordingly reverse the conviction for grand theft of an auto, making it unnecessary for us to reach his argument that his convictions for petit theft and grand theft amounted to double jeopardy. Reversed. GUNTHER and MAY, JJ., concur. NOT FINAL UNTIL DISPOSITION OF ANY TIMELY FILED MOTION FOR REHEARING.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
