JOSEPH CUNNINGHAM, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for receiving stolen goods, holding that the trial court did not err in denying a motion to elect counts and that sufficient evidence supported the verdict.
No, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to elect counts because a conviction could be had on any or all counts, with the penalty determined by the value of the goods.
“No error appears in the denial of the motion to elect between the counts since a conviction could properly be had on one or two or all of the counts, and the penalty would be determined by the value of the goods received by the defendant knowing them to. have been stolen.”
Reasoning for affirming the denial of the motion to elect counts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was tried on an information charging receiving stolen goods valued over $50.00. The trial court denied a motion to compel the State to e…
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 Felony Offense cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
Upon trial on an information charging in three counts the statutory offense of receiving stolen goods “all of the value of more than $50.00,” knowing them to have been stolen, the court denied a motion to require the State to elect on which count the prosecution would proceed, and the defendant on being found “guilty as charged” took writ of error to a judgment sentencing him to three years imprisonment in the State penitentiary. No error appears in the denial of the motion to elect between the counts since a conviction could properly be had on one or two or all of the counts, and the penalty would be determined by the value of the goods received by the defendant knowing them to. have been stolen. There was evidence adduced applicable to at least the first count that the value of the goods received was $50.00; and the State was subsequently required to elect and did elect to stand on the first count. This made the offense a felony and warranted the sentence under the statutes. Chap. 8563, Acts 1921, Secs. 5138, 5139, Rev. Gen. Stats., 1920.
There is evidence legally sufficient to sustain the verdict, and errors, if any, in rulings upon testimony and in giv- . ing and refusing charges and other proceedings could not reasonably have prejudiced the defendant in the trial.
No harmful errors appearing the judgment is affirmed.
Taylor, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Browne and West, J. J., conciir.