Opinion ID: 1959116
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Jury Instruction: Burglary

Text: Floyd asserts that he is entitled to relief under Valentine v. State, 774 So.2d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), review dismissed, 790 So.2d 1111 (Fla.2001). On this point we agree, noting that in Floyd's case the jury instruction on burglary was similar to the instruction for which relief was granted in Valentine. We therefore reverse Floyd's conviction for armed burglary. In Valentine, the trial judge instructed the jury with regard to a burglary charge: [25] Before you can find the defendant guilty of burglary, the State has to prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: One is that Ramon Valentine entered or remained in a conveyance owned by or in the possession of Johanny Rosa; Two, that Ramon Valentine did not have the permission or consent of Johanny Rosa or anyone authorized to act for her to enter or remain in the conveyance at that time, and at the time of entering or remaining in the conveyance, Ramon L.Valentine had a fully formed conscious intent to commit the offense of burglary with an assault or battery in that conveyance. .... Even though an unlawful entering or remaining in a conveyance is proved, if the evidence does not establish that it was done with the intent to commit burglary with an assault or battery, the defendant must be found not guilty. Valentine v. State, 774 So.2d at 937. In analyzing the above instruction the district court in Valentine stated: This instruction suggests to the jury that it could convict Valentine [the defendant] if it found that he formed the requisite intent while he remained in the [victim's] vehicle. However, because this is not a case where the facts could support a surreptitious remaining, Valentine could not be convicted of burglary unless he had the requisite intent when he entered the [victim's] vehicle. Id. The district court in Valentine granted relief, based on our opinion in Delgado v. State, 776 So.2d 233, 240-42 (Fla.2000), despite the lack of an objection from the defendant to the jury instruction with regard to burglary. See Valentine, 774 So.2d at 937. In Delgado, this Court interpreted the remaining in language in Florida's burglary statute [26] to allow a conviction for burglary based upon a defendant remaining in an occupied dwelling only when the defendant's remaining therein was performed surreptitiously. The instruction in Floyd's case was substantially similar to that in Valentine. [27] Similar to the situation in Valentine, the jury instruction in this case suggests that the jury could have convicted Floyd of burglary [28] if it found that he formed an intent to commit murder while he remained in Ms. Goss's home. As in Valentine, this case is not one where the facts could support a `surreptitious remaining.' Valentine, 774 So.2d at 937. Therefore, Floyd is entitled to have his conviction for armed burglary reversed due to fundamental error in the jury instruction. [29] The reversal of Floyd's conviction for armed burglary requires that we also strike the finding of the murder in the course of a felony aggravating circumstance in this case. Moreover, the theory of Floyd's guilt based on felony murder cannot stand. As noted supra, however, the jury also found Floyd guilty based on the theory of premeditated murder. Competent, substantial evidence still supports Floyd's conviction for premeditated murder.