HENRY ARTHUR LOCKETT, A/K/A JACK ROBINSON, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a conviction for receiving stolen property, holding that the state sufficiently proved ownership of the property and the identity of the stolen goods, despite the lack of direct evidence of corporate incorporation.
Yes, the state sufficiently proved ownership for the purposes required by law, and the evidence adequately supported the finding of identity between the property found in the appellant's possession and the alleged stolen property.
“We hold, however, that ownership, to the extent and for the purpose required (Duncan v. State, 29 Fla. 439, 10 So. 815), was sufficiently established.”
Establishes the court's holding on the sufficiency of proof of ownership.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHenry Arthur Lockett was charged with buying, receiving, or aiding in the concealment of 27 stolen radiators. The state alleged the radiators belonged…
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 Receiving Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was informed against, charged with buying, receiving or aiding in the concealment of 27 stolen radiators, the property of “Peacock’s Radiator Service, Inc., a corporation.” He was tried and found guilty.
On this appeal by him from the judgment of conviction appellant contends the state failed to prove ownership as alleged, and that the evidence was insufficient to establish identity of the property found in appellant’s possession as the alleged stolen property. We find those contentions to be without merit, and affirm.
The proofs disclosed ownership in Peacock’s Radiator Service, and no evidence was presented directly as to whether the concern was lawfully incorporated. We hold, however, that ownership, to the extent and for the purpose required (Duncan v. State, 29 Fla. 439, 10 So. 815), was sufficiently established. It was so held in McClendon v. State, Fla.App.1960, 117 So.2d 506, which was similar on the facts relating to that point. On examination of the record we conclude also that the evidence adequately supports the finding in the trial court as to identity of the property found in the appellant’s possession with the alleged stolen property.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hiram Cazes Parnell v. State, 218 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…ment of the crime is present in the record, this court should not interfere with the conclusions of the trier of fact. Lee v. State, Fla.App.1963, 153 So. 2d 351; Eizenman v. State, Fla.App. 1961, 132 So. 2d 763. See: Lockett v. State, Fla.App.1966, 188 So. 2d 12. Under point three, the defendant makes the constitutional attack on his conviction, basically upon the following grounds: (1) [*540] The delayed arrest violated his Fifth Amendment rights, since he made incriminating statements while deprived of h…
Authorities Cited
- Duncan v. State, 29 Fla. 439 (Fla. 1892)
- McCLENDON v. State, 117 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)