WILLIAM FRED ANDERSON, 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.
William Fred Anderson was convicted of two felonies: possessing a firearm as a convicted felon and receiving stolen property. The appellate court affirmed the firearm conviction but reversed the stolen property conviction due to insufficient evidence of Anderson's knowledge that the vehicle was stolen.
The court affirmed the conviction for firearm possession by a previously convicted felon as being supported by substantial evidence. However, the court reversed the stolen property conviction because the record lacked evidence showing Anderson's knowledge that the automobile was stolen or facts that would put him on notice of the vehicle's stolen character.
[1] Evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction for buying, receiving, or aiding in the concealment of stolen property when the record lacks evidence showing the defenda…
[2] A conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon may be affirmed if supported by competent substantial evidence.
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“we conclude that the conviction relating to possession of the firearm by a convicted felon was amply supported by competent substantial evidence”
Establishes that the firearm possession conviction met the sufficiency of evidence standard and was affirmed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnderson was charged with three offenses: buying, receiving, or aiding in concealment of stolen property; possession of a pistol after felony convicti…
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 Knowledge Of Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
By information the appellant was charged in separate counts with (1) buying, receiving or aiding in the concealment of stolen property, well knowing the same to be stolen; (2) possession of a pistol after having been convicted of a felony; and (3) of manual possession and carrying around a pistol without a license therefor. Upon trial before the court the appellant was found and adjudged guilty of the first two of said offenses and was acquitted of the third. The court imposed two sentences of five years confinement, to run concurrently, with credit for certain jail time served.
On appeal therefrom the defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions. On consideration thereof in the light of the record and briefs, we conclude that the conviction relating to possession of the firearm by a convicted felon was amply supported by competent substantial evidence. However, we conclude there is merit to the contention of the appellant that the evidence presented was insufficient to sustain his conviction on the charge of buying, receiving or aiding in the concealment of stolen property, well knowing the same to have been stolen. The *184appellant was a passenger in an automobile revealed to have been stolen the day before. The record is lacking in evidence showing knowledge on his part that the automobile was stolen, or such as to put him on notice of the character of the car as stolen property. See Hart v. State, 92 Fla. 809, 110 So. 253, 255-256; Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1968, 216 So.2d 25.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence relating to the charge of possession of a firearm by one previously convicted of a felony are affirmed, and the judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant on the charge of buying, receiving or aiding in the concealment of stolen property are reversed.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City of Rockledge v. Lester, 40 Fla. Supp. 70 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1974)…brief, the following cases support this rule — Douglass v. State, Fla. App. 1968, 214 So. 2d 653; Baker v. U. S. (8th Cir.) 395 F. 2d 368; 4 Cr. Law Bulletin 416; Williams v. State, Fla. App. 1968, 206 So. 2d 466; Anderson v. State, Fla. App. 1970, 241 So. 2d 183; and Walker v. State, Fla. App. 1971, 248 So. 2d 491. While in determining probable cause or a reasonable ground for belief that a crime has been committed and that the accused committed it, an officer can consider the facts and circumstances as a…
Authorities Cited
- Hart v. State, 92 Fla. 809 (Fla. 1926)
- Whitfield v. State, 216 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)