MARCY E. BENDER, 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.
The court held that the unexplained possession of recently stolen property is sufficient to support a conviction for burglary when the burglary occurred as an adjunct to the theft.
Marcy Bender was convicted of burglary, uttering a forged instrument, and grand theft. She possessed and attempted to cash checks stolen from her neig…
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 Principal To A Crime cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, J.
Marcy Bender appeals her convictions of burglary of a dwelling, uttering a forged instrument, and grand theft. As to the charge of burglary, she claims that the evidence was insufficient to show that she was a principal to the burglary of the victim’s home. We disagree and affirm.
Bender had possession of and attempted to cash checks stolen from the victim, Bender’s neighbor. In Francis v. State, 808 So. 2d 110, 134 (Fla.2001), the court stated, “ ‘[UJnexplained possession of recently stolen property is not only sufficient to support a theft conviction, but when a burglary necessarily occurs as an adjunct, the inference of guilt from the unexplained possession of the recently stolen goods also supports a conviction for burglary.’ ” (quoting T.S.R. v. State, 596 So. 2d 766, 767 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)).
Similarly, in this case Bender’s possession of the stolen checks was sufficient to support the conviction. Although she also contends that the conviction is the result of the pyramiding of inferences, we think this is a case involving a number of facts from which one inference is to be made. See Matalon v. Lee, 847 So. 2d 1077, 1080 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (holding that plaintiff did not improperly stack inferences but instead introduced facts from which one inference was to be made).
We affirm the remaining issues without further discussion.
Affirmed.
POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A.M.W. v. State, 934 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…ony of Sayles and Brinson constituted competent, substantial evidence from which the trier of fact could find that the elements of the crimes were established beyond a reasonable doubt, without an undue pyramiding of inferences. See Bender v. State, 890 So. 2d 538, 539 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (affirming conviction because, where defendant possessed stolen checks from the burglarized home, the case involved a number of facts from which one inference was made). A.M.W. next argues that most of his delinquency adjud…
Authorities Cited
- Carlton A. Francis v. State, 808 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 2001)
- T.S.R. v. State, 596 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Matalon v. LEE, 847 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)