BENJAMIN ALVAREZ
v.
STATE
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 Supreme Court reversed a conviction for robbery because the information failed to allege ownership of the stolen property, a requirement established in a prior case. This omission was grounds for a motion to quash.
No, an information charging robbery must allege the ownership of the property taken or state that the owner is unknown. Failure to do so renders the information insufficient against a timely motion to quash.
“The judgment'of conviction is reversed on the authority of Pippin v. State, 102 Fla. 1124, 136 Sou. Rep. 883, for omission of the information, filed under Section 7157 C. G. L. charging robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon, to allege the ownership of the property therein described as the object of; the robbery, or in lieu thereof that the owner thereof was unknown, as required under that decision.”
Establishes the reason for reversal based on a prior controlling precedent and the specific omission in the information.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon. The information filed against him did not specify the ownership of the pro…
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.
The judgment'of conviction is reversed on the authority of Pippin v. State, 102 Fla. 1124, 136 Sou. Rep. 883, for omission of the information, filed under Section 7157 C. G. L. charging robbery while armed with a *203dangerous weapon, to allege the ownership of the property therein described as the object of; the robbery, or in lieu thereof that the owner thereof was unknown, as required under that decision. Such ownership, when alleged, may consist of a general or special property in the subject matter, but a complete omission of all allegation of ownership cannot be upheld as against a motion to quash duly and timely interposed in a case of this kind.
Reversed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur.
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
(concurring). — While I dissented in the Pippin case, that case settled the question involved here, unless and until there is additional legislation on the subject. I therefore concur.
Brown, J.
(concurring). — While I dissented in the Pippin case, that case settled the question involved here, unless and until there is additional legislation on the subject. I therefore concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blanco v. State, 150 Fla. 98 (Fla. 1942)…to the jury testimony to show that at the time the Royal Theatre was robbed he was attending another theatre in the City of Tampa. The cases of Croft v. State, 109 Fla. 188, 146 So. 649; Aldrich v. State, 123 Fla. 352, 166 So. 838; Alvarez v. State, 128 Fla. 202, 174 So. 333; Hamilton v. State, [*102] 133 Fla. 481, 182 So. 854, have been reviewed. Support of counsels’ contentions may be found in some of these citations. It is our conclusion that these several decisions have been placed at rest by Section 11…
-
Hunt v. State, 200 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…convicted of a robbery of a grocery store. On this appeal reversal is claimed upon the argument that the State failed to prove the ownership of the property. Appellant relies on Pippin v. State, 1931, 124 Fla. 1124, 136 So. 883 and Alvarez v. State, 128 Fla. 202, 174 So. 333 (1937). The information alleged that the property taken was the property of “Clara W. George, d/b/a George’s Market”. The State proved that the property taken was cash from the cash register and a part of the stock of goods of a grocer…
Authorities Cited
- Pippin v. State, 102 Fla. 1124 (Fla. 1931)