Case Name: James Elbert FAISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1980-07-02
Citations: 390 So. 2d 728
Docket Number: No.00-175/T1-108
Parties: James Elbert FAISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: DAUKSCH, C. J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 390
Pages: 728–731

Head Matter:
James Elbert FAISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No.00-175/T1-108.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
July 2, 1980.
On Rehearing Nov. 19, 1980.
Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, and Harold W. Long, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, and Mary Sue Donsky, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard W. Prospect, Asst. Atty. Gen., Day-tona Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Judge.
Appellant, James Elbert Faison, was found guilty of two counts of grand theft under section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1977). We find no error as to Count I which charged the commission of criminal acts occurring on or about November 16, 1977 and affirm.
Count II provided:
SPECIFICATIONS OF CHARGE: In that, JAMES ELBERT FAISON, did, on or about the 19th day of August, 1977, at or near Ormond Beach within Volusia County, Florida, obtain or use or did endeavor to obtain or use the property of another, to-wit, U.S. Currency of the value of over One Hundred ($100.00) dollars or more, but less than $20,000.00, with the intent to deprive Susan Wendland, of her right to the property or benefit therefrom or with the intent to appropriate the property to his own use or to the use of a person not entitled thereto.
The record reflects that appellant had promised to purchase an automobile for a Susan Wendland, the daughter of a woman he had befriended. He had obtained $1,350.00 from her but had failed to deliver the car or return the money. Both the promise and other transactions occurred in August and September of 1977, but the theft statute (section 812.014) did not become effective until October 1, 1977. The record reflects that, as to Count II, the state failed to allege or prove any act constituting a theft after the effective date of the statute, October 1, 1977.
Unless the conviction can be sustained under section 812.021, Florida Statutes (1977), the larceny statute in effect prior to October 1, 1977, it must be reversed for insufficiency of the evidence. Pinder v. State, 53 So.2d 639 (Fla.1951).
An essential element of larceny under section 812.021 was the intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property. Wethington v. State, 159 Fla. 670, 32 So.2d 458 (1947); Kemp v. State, 146 Fla. 101, 200 So. 368 (1941); Reid v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 188 So.2d 846 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). Appellant requested the court to instruct the jury that the requisite intent is the intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property. This request was refused and instead a jury instruction which tracked the language of the new theft statute was given. That instruction required only a finding by the jury of an "unlawful" intent.
In several instances, the recitation of an incorrect statute in the information has been viewed as a mere technical defect waived by a failure to timely object. See, e. g., Sinclair v. State, 46 So.2d 453 (Fla.1950); Smith v. State, 72 Fla. 449, 73 So. 354 (1916); King v. State, 336 So.2d 1200 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), cert. dismissed, 434 U.S. 802, 98 S.Ct. 30,54 L.Ed.2d 60 (1977). However, in the case sub judice, the error was fundamental because the state failed to allege and prove a larceny under the former statute and the court failed to properly instruct on the essential elements of a larceny. Walsingham v. State, 250 So.2d 857 (Fla.1971); Koltay v. State, 360 So.2d 802 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Therefore we must reverse as to Count II.
AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.
DAUKSCH, C. J., concurs.
CROSS, J., concurs only in conclusion.