Schevling v. State

OPINION ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Appellant contends that his conviction, Fla.App., 424 So.2d 766, of grand theft should be set aside because the automobile he was guilty of stealing was “inoperable,”1 and therefore was not a “motor vehicle,” as used in the grand theft statute, Section 812.014(2)(b).4, Florida Statutes (1981). The trial judge disagreed, and so did the jury. We record our interpretation of the grand theft statute in response to appellant’s motion for rehearing urging that we do so, since there appears to be no other written opinion from a Florida court on this particular issue.

S…