(“[T]he specific intent to commit robbery is the intent to steal, i.e., to deprive an owner of property either permanently or temporarily.”); § 812.13(1), Fla. Stat. (2008). Appellant relies on Thomas v. State, 526 So.2d 183, 184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), which recognized that a well-founded belief in one’s right to the allegedly stolen property constitutes a complete defense to a charge of theft, Rodriguez v. State, 396 So.2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), and cases cited, and because the demonstration of a theft is indispensable to a robbery conviction, Arnold v. State, 83 So.2d 105, 108 (Fla. 1955), to a robbery case as well. Accord, Alfaro v. State, 837 So.2d 429, 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (error to deny claim-of-right instruction); Owens v. State, 866 So.2d 129, 131 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (<HOLDING>). Owens further explained that [a]s to how the
holding that the constitutional guarantee of a right to trial by jury includes the right to a complete and correct charge of the law so that each issue of fact raised by the evidence will be submitted to the jury on proper instructions holding that trial court was obliged to instruct jury that a wellfounded belief in ones right to possess property constitutes a complete defense to a charge of theft holding that insanity is a complete defense to the criminal charge recognizing a criminal defendants right to present a complete defense holding that the failure to properly instruct the jury on the burden of proof required a new trial