Case Name: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Corey L. STEPHENS, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1991-06-06
Citations: 586 So. 2d 1073
Docket Number: No. 89-1668
Parties: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Corey L. STEPHENS, Appellee.
Judges: DAUKSCH, COWART, GOSHORN and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 586
Pages: 1073–1081

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Corey L. STEPHENS, Appellee.
No. 89-1668.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
June 6, 1991.
On Motion for Clarification Oct. 17, 1991.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Belle B. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellant.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Daniel J. Schafer, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
COBB, Judge.
The issue here concerns proper judicial interpretation of the revised burglary statute, whereby the Florida Legislature consolidated the statutes relating to burglary of structures and burglary of conveyances, thereby improvidently mixing apples and oranges and emerging with the current version of section 810.02(1), which provides:
(1) "Burglary" means entering or remaining in a structure or a conveyance with the intent to commit an offense therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the public or the defendant is licensed or invited to enter or remain. (Emphasis added).
It is axiomatic that criminal statutes are to be strictly construed. Therefore, the statutory reference to intent to commit an offense within a conveyance must be construed to encompass only offenses which can be committed, and completed, within the confines of the conveyance itself, e.g., theft or destruction of personal property located inside the conveyance or a criminal offense directed against a person situated inside the conveyance — i.e., assault, battery, rape, or murder.
The defendant below, Corey Stephens, was charged in Seminole County with grand theft of a motor vehicle (a Pontiac automobile), burglary of a conveyance (the same vehicle), fleeing or attempting to elude, and malicious damage to the car. The jury acquitted Stephens of all counts except burglary of the conveyance. The burglary count alleged that Stephens had committed the burglary in Seminole County by unlawfully remaining in the Pontiac without the consent of the owner, with the intent to commit an offense therein, to-wit: theft or fleeing and eluding police officers.
After the verdict, the trial judge entered a judgment of acquittal on the burglary count on the basis of improper venue. This was because the information alleged the burglary occurred in Seminole County, where the trial was held, but the evidence at trial showed that Stephens broke into the vehicle in Volusia County and then fled south in it into Seminole County, where he was apprehended. The trial judge reasoned that the burglary of the conveyance occurred in Volusia County. In fact, no burglary occurred at all.
The state's evidence adduced below was that Stephens entered a conveyance in Vo-lusia County with the intent to steal it, not to commit any offense therein. He was not guilty of burglary of the conveyance in either Volusia County or Seminole County. Neither grand theft of a vehicle nor fleeing from a police officer in that stolen vehicle is an offense committed within the ve- hide. In this respect, we disagree with State v. Dalby, 361 So.2d 215 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).
Under the rationale of Dalby and the dissent herein, a person who steals a car by driving it away after the owner leaves the key in the ignition is guilty of two felonies (grand theft and burglary), whereas a person who steals that same car by towing it away with a wrecker is guilty of only grand theft. Surely, that bizarre result was not intended by the legislature.
The dissent herein faults the majority for affirming the trial court on a basis which has not been argued by the state. The appellate courts of Florida have long recognized the "tipsy coachman" rule, which states that a trial court should be upheld if it is correct for any reason even though an incorrect reason is given by the trial court for its holding. See Vandergriff v. Vandergriff, 456 So.2d 464 (Fla.1984); In re Yohn's Estate, 238 So.2d 290 (Fla.1970); MacNeill v. O'Neal, 238 So.2d 614 (Fla.1970); Carraway v. Armour & Co., 156 So.2d 494 (Fla.1963); Cohen v. Mohawk, Inc., 137 So.2d 222 (Fla.1962); Brookridge Community Property Owners, Inc. v. Brookridge, Inc., 573 So.2d 972 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Taylor v. Orlando Clinic, 555 So.2d 876 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), review denied, 567 So.2d 435 (Fla.1990); Greenbriar Condominium Apartments II Ass'n, Inc. v. Koch, 480 So.2d 131, 133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), review denied, 491 So.2d 279 (Fla.1986); Citizens Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of St. Lucie County v. Loeb, Rhoades, Homblower & Co., 473 So.2d 679, 683 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Alls v. 7Eleven Food Stores, Inc., 366 So.2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Stone v. Rosen, 348 So.2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's acquittal of Stephens on the charge of burglary of a conveyance.
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH, COWART, GOSHORN and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
W. SHARP, J., dissents with opinion, with which HARRIS, PETERSON and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.
. State v. Hankins, 376 So.2d 285, 286 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979).