P. BRAZIER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE 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 reversed a conviction for receiving stolen property, finding insufficient evidence that the defendant possessed or concealed the stolen items.
No, the evidence was insufficient to establish that the plaintiff in error ever possessed, controlled, concealed, or aided in the concealment of any of the stolen articles.
“There is not a word of evidence in the record which in anywise establishes it as a fact that the plaintiff in error Brazier ever at any time had in his possession or control, or at any time concealed or aided in the concealment of any one of the articles named and described in the information.”
Establishes the lack of evidence for the conviction.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error was convicted of receiving and aiding in the concealment of stolen property valued over $50. His co-defendants were convicted o…
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 Receiving Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
Buford, J.
In this ease the plaintiff in error was convicted with two others, the other two being convicted of breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a felony, while the plaintiff in error was convicted on the second count of the information which charged that he and the two others did receive and aid in the concealment of certain property of the value of more than $50.00 which had been theretofore stolen, and which they then and there knew to have been stolen. The evidence against the plaintiff in error here offered to support the charge upon which he was convicted, we think, is not as strong as it was in the case against the defendant Knowles, in Knowles v. State, 86 Fla. 270, 97 Sou. 616.
There is not a word of evidence in the record which in anywise establishes it as a fact that the plaintiff in error Brazier ever at any time had in his possession or control, or at any time concealed or aided in the concealment of any one of the articles named and described in the information.
The case should be reversed on authority of Knowles v. State, supra, and it is so ordered.
Reversed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur. Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Sullivan v. State Ex Rel. McCrory, 49 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1951)…existence of "probable cause" is a sine qua non to the validity of the magistrate's commitment it is essential to the magistrate's jurisdiction to make the commitment. See Section 902.14, Florida Statutes, same F.S.A.; McLeod v. Chase, 95 Fla. 736a, 116 So. 858; Shelton v. Coleman, supra; Ex parte Fortune, 126 Fla. 539, 171 So. 310. Thus, a review, on habeas corpus, of the evidence taken by the magistrate is for the sole purpose, in effect, of determining whether the evidence authorized the magistrate to a…
-
Shelton v. Coleman, 136 Fla. 625 (Fla. 1939)…e exception to- this rule which has been recognized by [*633] tins Court is where a person is held under process issuing from a committing magistrate under a state of facts which constitute no offense under the law. McLeod v. Chase, 95 Fla. 736 (a), 116 So. 858. A writ of habeas corpus is thus designed to test solely the question of the legality of the petitioner’s imprisonment or detention. Haile v. Gardner, 82 Fla. 355, 91 So. 376; Ex parte Amos, 93 Fla. 5, 112 So. 289. The main question which the plai…
-
Jefferson ex rel. v. Sweat, 76 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1954)…ceeding directly to this Court. In each case jurisdiction was exercised and the prisoner discharged because there was no probable cause. See also State ex rel. Price v. Stone, 128 Fla. 637, 175 So. 229. In the case of McLeod v. Chase, 95 Fla. 736a, 116 So. 858, 859, the appellant was committed by a Justice of the Peace and obtained a writ of habeas corpus from the Circuit Court of Dade County. The Circuit Judge declined to discharge the appellant because, in his opinion, the case of White v. Penton, 92 Fl…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Knowles v. State, 86 Fla. 270 (Fla. 1923)