PRESTON BROOKS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Preston Brooks was convicted of burglary of a conveyance, possession of burglary tools, and grand theft. The appellate court affirmed his convictions and sentences, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the guilty verdicts and rejecting his claim that he was merely helping change a tire.
The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence inconsistent with Brooks's innocence theory that he was merely changing a tire. The court also affirmed the restitution order, finding that Brooks waived any challenge to the amount of loss by failing to object at the sentencing hearing.
[1] Circumstantial evidence must be sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
[2] A conviction cannot be sustained if the circumstantial evidence is consistent with a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“there was sufficient evidence consistent with appellant's guilt and inconsistent with appellant's hypothesis of innocence to warrant the denial of the motions for judgment of acquittal”
Establishes the standard for affirming conviction despite defendant's alternative explanation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficers discovered Brooks at a stolen vehicle with the steering column and dashboard smashed, the glove box broken open, lug nuts removed from all fo…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Hypothesis Of Innocence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the convictions and sentences of appellant for burglary of a conveyance, possession of burglary tools, and grand theft as we agree with the state that there was sufficient evidence consistent with appellant’s guilt and inconsistent with appellant’s hypothesis of innocence to warrant the denial of the motions for judgment of acquittal. State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187 (Fla.1989). While appellant argues that the state proved mere presence of appellant at the stolen car and flight upon the approach of the police officers, there was much more circumstantial evidence.
Appellant claims he was changing a tire on the car. The officers testified that appellant fled upon seeing them, and dropped the tire tool which had been in the car’s trunk whose lock had been punched out. The steering column of the car had been smashed as well as the dashboard and glove box. Further, all four wheels had most of the lug nuts removed and the hubcaps were on the ground in front of the car. The officers also testified that none of the tires appeared flat. Such evidence was inconsistent with appellant’s theory that he was just helping a friend change a flat tire.
Thus, the case was properly submitted to the jury.
We also affirm the sentence and order of restitution. Although appellant claims the state failed to demonstrate the amount of the victim’s loss, appellant waived this issue by failing to object at the sentencing hearing. Butts v. State, 575 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 5th DCA1991); Haines v. State, 571 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 1st DCA1990); Holland v. State, 485 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA1986), rev. denied, 508 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1987).
DOWNEY, GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moore v. State, 623 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…ly objected to the restitution for the tools. Since they did not object to the restitution or the amount for the victim’s truck, the objection is waived, Anthony v. State, 585 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), and proeedurally barred. Brooks v. State, 605 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Bayer v. State, 597 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Moore’s other claims are without merit. SENTENCE AFFIRMED; RESTITUTION REVERSED. HARRIS, C.J., and GOSHORN, J., concur. . § 812.014(1), Fla.Stat. (1991). . § 319.33(1)(d),…
-
Remor v. State, 991 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…comes from the way the device is used in a burglary. Thus, in Brooks v. State, a defendant fled from a stolen car and dropped a tire tool; the tool had been used to smash the steering column, dashboard, glove box and to remove lug nuts and hubcaps. 605 So. 2d 522, 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). We held that the jury in Brooks could have properly concluded that the defendant used the tire tool to assist in the burglary. In other cases, the surrounding circumstances indicated that a defendant “was preparing to use…
-
Loring v. State, 674 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…deduct the amount of insurance premiums which she paid ($1,040.00) from the amount of restitution ordered ($49,-751.08). Appellant did not object to the ordered restitution at the sentencing; therefore, she has waived the issue. See Brooks v. State 605 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), Butts v. State, 575 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). AFFIRMED. KLEIN and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Ronnie S. LAW, 559 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1989)
- Bush Wade Holland v. State, 508 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1987)
- Butts v. State, 575 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Jefferson v. State, 571 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Haines v. State, 571 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Bush Wade Holland v. State, 485 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)