WILLIAM S. FEWOX, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
This case addresses whether venue was proper in Hillsborough County for a conviction of buying, receiving, or concealing stolen property. The court held that venue was proper because the property was found concealed in Hillsborough County, even though the purchase and receipt occurred elsewhere.
Yes, venue was proper in Hillsborough County because the offense of concealing stolen property was committed there, as evidenced by the location where the stolen item was found.
“The statute in question has been uniformly construed to state "but one offense, although it gives three methods by which the offense may be committed. * * Proof of any one of the methods alleged is sufficient to sustain conviction and sentence for the offense."”
Establishes that the offense is singular, regardless of the method of commission.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted in Hillsborough County for buying, receiving, or concealing stolen property. The evidence showed that the purchase and rec…
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 Venue In Criminal Cases cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, tried and convicted of an offense under F.S. Section 811.16, F.S.A., “Buying, receiving, concealing stolen property," urges on appeal a question of venue. The evidence in the cause was that the overt acts charged, the purchase and receipt of the property in question, took place outside Hillsborough County, where appellant was tried. Appellant, however, accompanied investigating officers to his father’s home in Hillsborough- County where one of the stolen items was found.
*75The statute in question has been uniformly construed to state “but one offense, although it gives three methods by which the offense may be committed. * * Proof of any one of the methods alleged is sufficient to sustain conviction and sentence for the offense.” Hamilton v. State, 129 Fla. 219, 176 So. 89, at page 91, 112 A.L.R. 1013, and cases there cited. The charges against appellant were, therefore, properly brought in the county where the goods were found to have been concealed, without resort to special statutory enactments relating to venue, which have been held inapplicable to the offense here involved. F.S. Secs. 910.05, 910.10, F.S.A. See Wharton’s Criminal Law and Procedure, Vol. IV, Sec. 1510. Cf. State v. Ellerbe, 217 La. 639, 47 So.2d 30.
The remaining issues relate to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. We find no cause to disturb the conclusion of the jury on the material points. Broxson v. State, 99 Fla. 1187, 128 So. 628.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, Acting Chief Judge, and SHANNON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Isiah Jackson v. State, 192 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…s connection, it should be noted that there was no evidence that appellant bought or received stolen goods. The question is whether a prima facie case of aiding in the concealment of stolen property was established. See Fewox v. State, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 74. Appellant relies upon the holding in Hodges v. State, Fla.1965, 176 So. 2d 91, for reversal upon his first point. In the Hodges case, the Supreme Court held that it was obvious “that the fact that the crime of larceny had occurred could not be est…
Authorities Cited
- Augusta Hamilton v. State, 129 Fla. 219 (Fla. 1937)
- Broxson v. State, 99 Fla. 1187 (Fla. 1930)