BENJAMIN MALLAH AND SALVATORE ALBERT PANICO, APPELLANTS,
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 evidence obtained from a search incident to a lawful arrest is admissible, and proof of the cash value of stolen goods is not required for a conviction of unlawful entry with intent to commit petit larceny.
Appellants were convicted of unlawfully entering a dwelling with intent to commit petit larceny. They appealed, arguing evidence was obtained through …
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 Search Incident To Lawful Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
Benjamin Mallah and Salvatore Albert Pánico appeal from judgments and sentences pursuant to a verdict of guilty upon a trial for the crime of unlawfully and feloniously entering without breaking a dwelling house with intent to commit a misdemeanor, to wit: petit larceny. They present two points in their argument: The first urges that certain evidence was improperly admitted because it was obtained by an illegal search. The second urges that the state failed to prove any cash value for the goods allegedly stolen.
Upon the first point it affirmatively appears from the record that the evidence to which objection was made was obtained by search of an automobile in which appellants were riding at the time of their arrest. The search was incident to a lawful arrest. Pflegl v. State, Fla.1957, 93 So.2d 75.
The second point is equally without merit, since proof of the cash value of the articles stolen is not required to sustain a conviction for unlawfully and feloniously entering without breaking a dwelling house with intent to commit a misdemeanor, to wit: petit larceny. Jalbert v. State, Fla.1957, 95 So.2d 589; Channell v. State, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 284, 287.
Affirmed.
HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Esaw Jones v. State, 192 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…cases. In proving specific intent in “petit larceny” cases, the state has not been compelled to establish that personal property, the subject of larceny, is of specific value, so long as it appears to be “of value”. In Mallah v. State, Fla.App.1960, 121 So. 2d 667, the court directly held that proof of cash value is not required in order to establish the requisite intent in a “petit larceny” case. In the 'following cases no evidence of “value” was offered or required: Channell v. State, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.…
-
Garcia v. State, 142 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…plete by the breaking and entering with an intent to steal goods.’ . The motion to quash the indictment was properly overruled.” For further discussion on this question, see Jalbert v. State, Fla.1957, 95 So. 2d 589; Mallah v. State, Fla.App. 1960, 121 So. 2d 667; and Scott v. State, Fla.App.1962, 137 So. 2d 625. We hold that it was not necessary for the State to prove that there was any property of any value in the automobile. The crime was complete by the breaking and entering the automobile with intent t…
-
Mallah v. State, 123 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1960)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 121 So. 2d 667.…
Authorities Cited
- Jalbert v. State, 95 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1957)
- Channell v. State, 107 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Pflegl v. State, 93 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 1957)