MARK FICE AND JESSE JACKSON, APPELLANTS,
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.
Mark Fice and Jesse Jackson appealed their convictions for petit larceny and receiving stolen credit cards. The court reversed their convictions on the credit card charge, finding insufficient evidence that mere passengers could be liable, but transferred the misdemeanor petit larceny conviction to circuit court as beyond the appellate court's jurisdiction.
The court reversed the conviction on Count Two (receiving stolen credit cards), finding insufficient evidence against passengers, and discharged the defendants on that charge. The court lacked appellate jurisdiction over the misdemeanor petit larceny conviction and transferred that matter to circuit court for review.
[1] A conviction for buying, receiving, or concealing stolen credit cards cannot be sustained solely on the basis of being a passenger in a vehicle controlled by another indi…
[2] Appellate courts lack jurisdiction to review misdemeanor convictions.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“since the appellants were only passengers of the car being operated and controlled by James Newbold... the evidence is insufficient to support their conviction of the charge of buying, receiving or aiding in the concealment of stolen credit cards”
Establishes the core holding that mere passengers cannot be held liable for receiving stolen items based solely on their presence in the vehicle
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFice and Jackson were passengers in a car operated by James Newbold. They were charged with petit larceny (Count One) and buying, receiving, or aiding…
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
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING GRANTED
The appellants, Mark Fice and Jesse Jackson, have filed a petition for rehearing of our per curiam affirmance of their convictions of petit larceny and buying, receiving or aiding in the concealment of stolen credit cards, filed on November 12, 1969.
The appellants contend that this court erred in affirming their convictions. In support of their contentions it is argued that since the appellants were only passengers of the car being operated and controlled by James Newbold [See Newbold v. State, Fla.App., 229 So.2d 876 opinion filed November 12, 1969.] the evidence is insufficient to support their conviction of the charge of buying, receiving or aiding in the concealment of stolen credit cards as made in Count Two of the information. We find merit in appellants’ petition. Therefore, we are withdrawing our opinion of affirmance filed November 12, 1969, and hereby reverse the judgments and sentences imposed upon the defendants on the charges in Count Two of the information and the defendants are discharged as to the charges under Count Two.
As to the convictions and sentences for petit larceny under Count One of the information, we find we are without appellate jurisdiction to review a petit larceny conviction, it being a misdemeanor; therefore upon termination of the matters on appeal in this court, the appeal as it relates to the convictions and sentences of the defendants under Count One, the misdemeanor count, will be transferred to the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, as the proper forum to review this matter involving a misdemeanor. Spina v. State, Fla.App.1966, 186 So.2d 808; Rule 2.1(a) (5) (d), Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. The Honorable Paul Baker, 248 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 1971)…orporation v. City of Sarasota, 213 So. 2d 756 (Fla.App.2nd 1968) (certiorari petition seeking review of administrative order improperly transferred to Second District Court of Appeal by Circuit Court; retransferred to Circuit Court); Fice v. State, 232 So. 2d 191 (Fla.App.3rd 1970) (misdemeanor conviction appealed to Third District Court of Appeal) ; Merrill v. State, 225 So. 2d 436 (Fla.App.3rd, 1969) (misdemeanor conviction appealed to Third District Court of Appeal). Conversely, where an appeal is improv…
-
Diamond v. State, 233 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)…emand for further proceedings consistent herewith. . Diamond v. State, Fla.App.1968, 216 So. 2d 269 (cert. den. Fla.1969, 222 So. 2d 751). Jly dissent was erroneously omitted from this citation. . See Fice v. State, Third District Court of Appeal, 232 So. 2d 191, opinion filed January 21, 1970. . CrPR 1.600(a) (3).…
Authorities Cited
- Spina v. State, 186 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Newbold v. State, 229 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)