JOHN ALBERT MCMICHAEL, 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 court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant's convictions for receiving stolen property and possession of burglarious tools.
The defendant was found shortly after 2:00 a.m. in possession of a recently stolen boat, partially concealed. He was also found in possession of burgl…
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 Possession Of Burglary Tools cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by a defendant who was found guilty and sentenced for (1) buying, receiving and concealing stolen property and (2) possession of burglarious tools made unlawful by F.S. § 810.06, F.S. A. Appellant’s points on appeal urge the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain each of the charges. We affirm.
The conviction for the receiving and concealing stolen property was proper under the circumstances of this case inasmuch as the appellant was found shortly after 2:00 a. m. in the possession of a recently stolen boat which was partially concealed and with which he was discovered while in the process of either attempting to further conceal the stolen property or to facilitate its transportation further from 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cannon v. State, 289 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…ficient to show guilty knowledge, the circumstances surrounding the possession in this case were sufficient to make a prima facie case of the crime charged. Lawrence v. State, Fla.App.3rd, 1970, 230 So. 2d 160; McMichael v. State, Fla.App.3rd, 1972, 258 So. 2d 26; cf. State v. Graham, Fla.1970, 238 So. 2d 618. The general rule is that one who alone commits larceny cannot be adjudged guilty of receiving the thing stolen. Adams v. State, 1910, 60 Fla. 1, 53 So. 451. Appellant was not the only one involved in…
-
McMICHAEL v. State, 261 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 1972)…Certiorari denied. 258 So. 2d 26. CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur. DEKLE, J., dissents.…
Authorities Cited
- Dusky ARD v. State, 108 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1959)
- Schwam v. State, 222 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)