SIDNEY LINDSEY, 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.
Sidney Lindsey was convicted of breaking and entering a store with intent to commit grand larceny and grand larceny after items matching stolen property were found in his possession. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction, rejecting all grounds for reversal.
The court affirmed Lindsey's conviction, finding that all grounds for reversal lacked merit. The items were properly identified as stolen goods, the evidence was sufficient to establish venue in Dade County, and the items were lawfully obtained without unreasonable search or seizure since they were openly observed.
“They were, as subsequently identified and determined, recently stolen articles found in Lindsey's possession without reasonable explanation.”
The court's conclusion that the items were properly admitted as evidence of the crimes charged, establishing that Lindsey possessed stolen goods without legitimate explanation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn February 1, 1965, a Metro detective observed Lindsey at a trading post selling items including clocks, watches, watch bands, razors, and lighters. …
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 Breaking And Entering With Intent To Commit Grand Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant Sidney Lindsey was informed against, charged with the crimes of breaking and entering a store building with intent to commit grand larceny, and grand larceny. He was tried, convicted and sentenced to be confined for three years. This appeal followed.
On the morning of February 1, 1965, the appellant was observed at “Flanders Trading Post, approximately 54th Street and 27th Avenue” displaying for sale certain items (clocks, watches, watch bands, razors and lighters). A Metro detective then present took him into custody and questioned him about the items. Lindsey said he was selling them for another man who had given them to him for that purpose. The officer released him, .retaining the items, and arranged for Lindsey to meet him the next day at a certain place at which he was to point out the man from whom he stated he had received goods. Lindsey failed to appear, and on that day the officer learned that a store had been broken into and that personal property had been taken fitting the description of that which he had received from Lindsey.
We have considered the several grounds relied on for reversal and find them to be without merit. Designation of the occupying tenant as “owner” was proper. Cannon v. State, 102 Fla. 928, 136 So. 695. The date of the alleged offense was made to *438appear from the record. The evidence was sufficient upon which to fix the venue in Dade County, Fine v. State, 153 Fla. 297, 299, 14 So.2d 408, 409. The contention that the articles found in possession of the accused were not identified as objects of the larceny is not borne out by the record. The articles, which were received in evidence against the defendant, were not the fruit of an unreasonable search and seizure. The articles were openly observed. No search was involved. Beacham v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 175 So.2d 796. Under the circumstances the officer was justified in deeming them stolen goods, and impounding them. The fact that the burglary had not been reported to the officer previously was no reason to exclude the items at the trial when identified. They were, as subsequently identified and determined, recently stolen articles found in Lindsey’s possession without reasonable explanation.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gideon Bernhardt v. State, 288 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1974)…to be contraband. With this evidence in hand there existed probable cause for arrest of appellant pursuant to Section 901.15, Florida Statutes. State v. Perez, 277 So. 2d 778 (Fla.1973); State v. Parnell, 221 So. 2d 129 (Fla.1969); Lindsey v. State, 184 So. 2d 437 (Fla.App.1966); Beacham v. State, 175 So. 2d 796 (Fla.App.1965); Cf. Alexander v. State, 108 So. 2d 308 (Fla.App.1959). [*501] We have carefully considered all other points raised by appellant in the instant cause and find them to be without merit.…
-
Marx Daniel Boim and Clorinda A. Boim v. State, 194 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…warned or put upon notice by police officers that he is being watched. In electing to commit a crime at a place where others may see him, one must assume the hazard that he will be seen. * * * ” (181 So. 2d 675) In Lindsey v. State, Fla.App.1966, 184 So. 2d 437, this court considered a case wherein one Lindsey was observed by a police officer displaying certain items for sale. The officer, after questioning, released him from custody but retained the items. The next day the officer learned' that a store ha…
-
I. v. Anderson, 356 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…wful possession thereof. Cannon v. State, 102 Fla. 928, 136 So. 695 (1931); Dees v. State, 99 Fla. 1144, 128 So. 485 (1930); Collingsworth v. State, 93 Fla. 1110, 113 So. 561 (1927); Leslie v. State, 35 Fla. 171, 17 So. 555 (1895); Lindsey v. State, 184 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Holzapfel v. State, 120 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). In the instant case, the information lays the ownership of the burglarized dwelling in Van Alexander; the evidence at trial establishes that Van Alexander was an occupying l…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ward Cannon v. State, 102 Fla. 928 (Fla. 1931)
- Fine v. State, 153 Fla. 297 (Fla. 1943)
- Griffin v. Henderson, 102 Fla. 928 (Fla. 1931)
- Beacham v. State, 175 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)