JAMES NEWBOLD, APPELLANT,
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.
James Newbold appeals his conviction for buying, receiving, or concealing stolen property (credit cards) and petit larceny following a bench trial. The District Court of Appeal affirmed the felony conviction, rejecting his arguments that the search was illegal and that evidence was insufficient, while transferring review of the misdemeanor conviction to circuit court.
The court held that the denial of the suppression motion was proper because the Lazarus v. Faircloth decision invalidating the vagrancy statute had not been rendered at the time of arrest, and the officers had probable cause to believe Newbold was engaged in activities constituting vagrancy. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, as Newbold's unexplained possession of recently stolen credit cards, combined with other circumstances, provided substantial competent evidence of guilt.
“it is apparent from the record that the appellant and his co-defendant were engaged in activities which warranted the law enforcement officers having probable cause to believe that they were guilty of the crime of vagrancy”
Establishes that officers had sufficient probable cause for the arrest despite Newbold's argument of illegality
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNewbold and a co-defendant were arrested and charged with buying, receiving, or concealing stolen property and petit larceny. A search incident to the…
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 Petit Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, along with another, was charged with buying, receiving, or concealing stolen property, and petit larceny. Following a non-jury trial, they were convicted and sentenced accordingly, and this appeal has been duly prosecuted.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress, contending that the search which revealed the stolen property was incident to an illegal arrest, because the arrest was for the alleged crime of vagrancy, citing Lazarus v. Faircloth, D.C., S.D.Fla.1969, 301 F.Supp. 266, which held the vagrancy statute to be unconstitutional and, further, there was no probable cause that the appellant and his co-defendant were guilty of vagrancy. We reject this contention.
First, the decision in Lazarus v. Faircloth, supra, had not been rendered at the time of the arrest and, second, it is apparent from the record that the appellant and his co-defendant were engaged in activities which warranted the law enforcement officers having probable cause to believe that they were guilty of the crime of vagrancy. Hanks v. State, Fla.App.1967, 195 So.2d 49.
Appellant also contends the evidence was insufficient to support the charge of buying, receiving or concealing stolen property, to wit: certain credit cards. We also reject this contention. The record contains substantial competent evidence that the appellant had unexplained possession or control of recently stolen credit cards and this, together with the other circumstances revealed in the record, is sufficient to sustain his conviction. See: Ard v. State, Fla.1959, 108 So.2d 38.
This court is without jurisdiction to review the misdemeanor conviction and, upon termination of this matter in this court, same will be referred to the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, as the proper forum to review this matter. Christian v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So.2d 561; Spina v. State, Fla.App.1966, 186 So.2d 808; Rule 2.1(a) (5) (d), Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the felony conviction and sentence here under review, be and the same is hereby affirmed. Review of the misdemeanor conviction is transferred to the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida.
Affirmed in part, with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robinson v. State, 256 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…ll be transferred to the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, to consider the appeal from the misdemeanor conviction pursuant to Spina v. State, Fla.App.1966, 186 So. 2d 808; Newbold v. State, Fla.App.1969, 229 So. 2d 876; Byrd v. State, Fla.App.1971, 242 So. 2d 726.…
-
Hamrick v. State, 235 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…e alleged illegality of his arrest and the fact that photographs were taken of him at the time he was booked. We have reviewed the record, briefs and authorities and do not find reversible error on the first part. See Newbold v. State, Fla.App.1969, 229 So. 2d 876. Hanks v. State, Fla.App.1967, 195 So. 2d 49; and Reeves v. State, Fla.App.1966, 187 So. 2d 403. The appellant’s argument on the second part of this point has been reviewed and rejected in Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.E…
-
Schuster v. State, 235 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…o suppress the credit card as evidence, as being the fruit of a search predicated upon an unlawful arrest for vagrancy. We reject that contention. When made, the arrest was lawful, under § 856.02 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. See Newbold v. State, Fla.App.1969, 229 So. 2d 876, 877. Appellant claims error in the denial of his motion for acquittal made at the close of the state’s case, contending the evidence presented by the state failed to show the essential element of knowledge on his part that the credit card was stol…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dusky ARD v. State, 108 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1959)
- Christian v. State, 176 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Hanks v. State, 195 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Spina v. State, 186 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)