FALANDO L. WILKINS, 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.
Falando Wilkins was convicted of dealing in stolen property and giving false verification of ownership to a pawnbroker after pawning stolen cleaning tools worth over $5,000 for $250. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed his convictions, finding sufficient evidence that he knew or should have known the items were stolen based on the timing of the pawning, the suspicious circumstances, and statutory presumptions.
The convictions were affirmed. There was sufficient evidence, combined with statutory presumptions, to create a jury question of whether Wilkins knew or should have known the pawned items were stolen. The admission of hearsay testimony about ownership was harmless error because the victim's testimony that the machines were stolen from his store rendered it harmless.
[1] Proof of possession of recently stolen property, unless satisfactorily explained, creates an inference that the possessor knew or should have known the property was stole…
[2] Proof of the purchase or sale of stolen property at a price substantially below fair market value, unless satisfactorily explained, creates an inference that the buyer or…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Along with the statutory presumption, there was sufficient evidence to create a jury question of whether appellant knew or should have known that the pawned items were stolen.”
Establishes the standard for conviction and that statutory presumptions combined with circumstantial evidence support the conviction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVarious cleaning tools worth over $5,000 were stolen from a victim's business. The next afternoon at 2:00 p.m., Wilkins pawned the items for $250. At …
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 Dealing In Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm appellant’s convictions of dealing in stolen property and giving false verification of ownership to a pawnbroker. See §§ 812.019(1), 539.001(8), Fla. Stat. (2007). Various cleaning tools worth over $5,000 were stolen one night from the victim’s business; they were pawned at 2:00 p.m. the next afternoon for $250. At trial, appellant said that he had bought the items at “a swap meet in Lake Worth” for $1,200 in cash. He offered no documentary proof of the purchase.
Along with the statutory presumption, there was sufficient evidence to create a jury question of whether appellant knew or should have known that the pawned items were stolen. See § 812.022(2) and (3), Fla. Stat. (2007).1 Appellant pawned the items within hours of the theft. Cf. Bertone v. State, 870 So.2d 923, 924 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). His story of how he came into possession of the machines was not patently reasonable. Id.; see also Kerr v. State, 954 So.2d 692, 694 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (where court wrote that “[wjhen a defendant’s explanation is not indisputably reasonable and requires an assessment of credibility and other factors, the [statutory] presumption may not vanish entirely” after a defendant testifies). It is highly *9unusual to purchase items for $1,200 in cash to be used within hours as security for a high interest, $250 loan.
On the remaining issue, we find that the victim’s testimony that the pawned machines were stolen from his store renders the admission of the detective’s hearsay testimony about ownership to be harmless error.
DAMOORGIAN and GERBER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
L.S. v. State, 120 So. 3d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…ases applying the section 812.022(2) presumption, the time between the theft and the defendant’s possession of the stolen item is typically very short. See e.g. Morales v. State, 35 So. 3d 122, 125 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (three weeks); Wilkins v. State, 18 So. 3d 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (fewer than twenty-four hours); Kerr v. State, 954 So. 2d 692, 693 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (one day); Bronson v. State, 926 So. 2d 480, 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (a few hours); Kittles v. State, 897 So. 2d 517, 518 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (…
Authorities Cited
- Bertone v. State, 870 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Khareem Kerr v. State, 954 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)