WILLIAMS v. STATE (2020)

Randy Williams challenges his conviction and sentence for theft. He was convicted following a jury trial and argues on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. Because the State did not sufficiently prove criminal intent to overcome a judgment of acquittal, we reverse his conviction.

This court reviews the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. Gizaw v. State, 71 So. 3d 214, 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).

To support a conviction [of theft], the State must prove that the accused knowingly obtained the property of another with the intent to either deprive the other person of the property or to appropriate the property for his own use. The intent to steal is a necessary element of theft, and the State bears the burden of establishing that the alleged stolen property was taken with this intent.

Green v. State, 90 So. 3d 835, 837 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (citation omitted) (citing Ginn v. State, 26 So. 3d 706, 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)). Based on the evidence adduced at trial, the State did not sufficiently prove criminal intent. As such, the trial court erred in denying Williams' motion for judgment of acquittal. Accordingly, we reverse his judgment and sentence.

Reversed.

SLEET, Judge.

KHOUZAM, C.J., and VILLANTI, J., Concur.