Bartlett v. State
Florida District Court of Appeals
765 So. 2d 799 (2000)
- Written by Kaitlin Pomeroy-Murphy, JD
Facts
Russell Jones purchased a pickup truck from his friend William Bartlett (defendant). Upon purchase, Jones took possession of the truck and began paying for it in installments. Before the truck was fully paid for, Jones took an unrelated loan from Bartlett. When Jones failed to repay the loan, Bartlett repossessed the truck. At that point, Jones had finished making payments on the truck, but the title remained in Bartlett’s name, and Bartlett believed he had an interest in it. Jones suspected this might be the case and did not report the truck stolen for over two weeks. Jones later testified that at the time, he had thought Bartlett had an interest in the truck. At trial, the deputy sheriff testified about a conversation he had with Bartlett about the agreement with Jones. Bartlett claimed he repossessed the truck because Jones owed him money, to which the sheriff replied that he did not think Bartlett could do that because Jones had fully paid for the truck. Bartlett answered that he was not returning the truck until he received the money he was owed. The state (plaintiff) prosecuted Bartlett for taking the truck. Bartlett was convicted of grand theft, petit theft, and trespass. Bartlett appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Benton, J.)
Concurrence (Browning, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Miner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 782,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
