Piloto v. State (842 So. 2d 1055, 2003)

PER CURIAM.

We affirm in all respects, except with regard to Piloto’s conviction for possession of burglary tools. On this issue, the State failed to present a prima facie case because the evidence presented did not prove that the tools were used, or were intended to be used, in a burglary. § 810.06, Fla. Stat. (2001). Because the State’s evidence was insufficient to prove that Piloto at least intended to use the tools found in the van to perpetrate a burglary, his conviction on this count is reversed and remanded for discharge. See Latimore v. State, 753 So.2d 690 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR DISCHARGE.

GUNTHER, SHAHOOD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.