STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID FLOYD HOLCOMB, 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.
Florida's appellate court vacated the dismissal of trafficking in stolen property charges, holding that pawning stolen goods constitutes a statutory 'transfer' under Florida's trafficking statute regardless of the defendant's intent to redeem them.
Pawning stolen goods to a pawnbroker constitutes trafficking in stolen property under Florida law, even if the defendant intended to redeem the items.
[1] Pawning stolen goods constitutes a 'transfer' under Florida's trafficking in stolen property statute, regardless of the transferor's intent to redeem the items.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“One who attempts to sell or sells stolen goods to a pawnbroker is not using the stolen items for his own personal use but has met the statutory requirements for dealing in stolen property”
Court's application of State v. Nesta precedent to establish that pawnbroker transactions constitute trafficking in stolen property
David Floyd Holcomb was charged with trafficking in stolen property by pawning items he had previously stolen. Holcomb argued he did not deal in stole…
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 Trafficking In Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State appeals the trial court’s dismissal of Counts I, III and IV of the information against David Floyd Holcomb. These counts alleged that Holcomb trafficked in stolen property by pawning items previously stolen by him. We vacate the order dismissing the three counts.
Neither of the parties considered the decision in State v. Nesta, 617 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) which is dispositive of the issue on appeal. The district court held that “[o]ne who attempts to sell or sells stolen goods to a pawnbroker is not using the stolen items for his own personal use but has met the statutory requirements for dealing in stolen property”, Nesta at 721. The defendant in Nesta argued that he intended to repurchase the items from the pawn shop. We, likewise, find no merit in Holcomb’s argument in the instant case that he did not deal in stolen property because when he pawned the stolen goods, he simply obtained a loan or entered into a conditional sales agreement that allowed him to repay the money received from the pawn and redeem the goods. We hold that such a transaction is a “transfer” as that term is used in the statutory definition of trafficking in property. Sections 812.012(7) and 812.019(1), Fla.Stat. (1991).
The order of dismissal is vacated and we remand for farther proceedings.
DISMISSAL VACATED; REMANDED.
GOSHORN, PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allwine v. State, 978 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…. 2d DCA 1993) (holding that, “[o]ne who attempts to sell or sells stolen goods to a pawnbroker is not using the stolen items for his own personal use but has met the statutory requirements for dealing in stolen property.”); accord State v. Holcomb, 627 So. 2d 127, 127-28 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (“We, likewise, find no merit in Holcomb’s argument in the instant case that he did not deal in stolen property because when he pawned the stolen goods, he simply obtained a loan or entered into a conditional sales agreem…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Nesta, 617 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)