EDWIN MORRIS SCHWAM, 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 appellate court affirmed a conviction for possession of burglary tools, finding sufficient evidence of possession and intent to commit a crime.
Yes, there was substantial, competent evidence to support the guilty verdict and the judgment and sentence for possession of burglary tools.
“the principal elements of the crime are possession of a 'burglarious tool' with the intent to use, or allow the use of, the particular tool to commit a crime.”
This quote defines the essential elements of the crime of possession of burglary tools as established by prior case law.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdwin Morris Schwam was convicted in a non-jury trial for possession of burglary tools under Florida Statute § 810.06. The conviction was based on evi…
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 Intent To Commit A Crime cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, Schwam, appeals from his judgment and sentence for the crime of possession of burglary tools.
The question on appeal is whether there was sufficient competent evidence presented in the non-jury trial to prove that Schwam violated Fla.Stat. § 810.06, F.S.A.
In Estevez v. State, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 830, 831, it was stated:
“ * * * the principal elements of the crime are possession of a ‘burglarious tool’ with the intent to use, or allow the use of, the particular tool to commit a crime.”
Upon review of the testimony and evidence relating to possession and intent and in light of the evidence as to the surrounding facts and circumstances, we are of the view that there was substantial, competent evidence to support the guilty verdict and *791the judgment and sentence. See Troise v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 24; Rinehart v. State, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 487; Estevez v. State, supra.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McMICHAEL v. State, 258 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…m the scene of the crime. See the rule as stated in Ard v. State, Fla.1959, 108 So. 2d 38. The conviction for the possession of bur-glarious tools is based upon legally sufficient evidence under the rule set forth in Schwam v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 222 So. 2d 790. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Rinehart v. State, 114 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Estevez v. State, 189 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Troise v. State, 177 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)