Case Name: Dave FERGUSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1981-09-29
Citations: 404 So. 2d 179
Docket Number: No. 80-1738
Parties: Dave FERGUSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 404
Pages: 179–179

Head Matter:
Dave FERGUSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 80-1738.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Sept. 29, 1981.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Howard K. Blumberg, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Anthony C. Musto, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.

Opinion:
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
The defendant was convicted and sentenced both for burglary of a conveyance and possession of a burglary tool, a common screwdriver, which was used in the break-in. We think that the propriety of the dual adjudications and sentences, the sole issue on appeal, has been established by the recent decision in State v. Hegstrom, 401 So.2d 1343 (Fla.1981). By receding from State v. Pinder, 375 So.2d 836 (Fla.1979), Hegstrom simultaneously demonstrated the correctness of the rationale and result in Borges v. State, 394 So.2d 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), which is identical to this case and, as is shown by the first district's certification of the Pinder issue, which it considered controlling, the /«correctness of that court's directly contrary conclusion in Cantrell v. State, 405 So.2d 986 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
Since we agree with both Cantrell and Borges that possession of burglary tools— even when they are common household items — is not a lesser included offense of burglary, contra, Humphreys v. State, 388 So.2d 607, n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), Section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes (1979), which, under Hegstrom, entirely controls the present issue, requires that the judgments and sentences under review be
Affirmed.