GARY A. CANNON, 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.
Gary Cannon was convicted of receiving and concealing stolen property and sentenced to six months to five years imprisonment. On appeal, he challenged the sufficiency of evidence and alleged a fatal variance between the charging information and proof regarding ownership of the stolen property. The court affirmed his conviction, finding sufficient evidence and no prejudicial variance.
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, as the circumstances surrounding possession of recently stolen property constituted a prima facie case. The variance between the information and proof regarding ownership was not fatal because it was not raised at trial, the essential element—that property belonged to someone other than the accused—was established, and Cannon was not misled or embarrassed in his defense.
[1] Sufficient and competent evidence can support a conviction for receiving and concealing stolen property, even if the circumstances surrounding possession alone are not su…
[2] One who alone commits larceny cannot be adjudged guilty of receiving the thing stolen.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the circumstances surrounding the possession in this case were sufficient to make a prima facie case of the crime charged”
Establishes the standard for sufficiency of evidence in receiving stolen property cases based on circumstances of possession
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCannon and a companion were charged with receiving and concealing stolen property. Cannon was tried separately and convicted. The state proved the pro…
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 Fatal Variance cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant and a companion were charged by information with the crime of receiving and concealing stolen property. Appellant was tried separately, convicted of the charge, and sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison to a term of six months to five years.
Appellant’s first point in this appeal is directed to the sufficiency of the evidence. The record on appeal contains sufficient and competent evidence to support the conviction. The state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the property had been stolen. While the mere unexplained possession of recently stolen property is not sufficient 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 the crime, and there was no evidence that appellant actually participated in the larceny. Metcalf v. State, 1929, 98 Fla. 457, 124 So. 427; Cf. Adams v. State, supra; Ketelsen v. State, Fla.App.3rd, 1968, 211 So. 2d 853; Thomas v. State, Fla.App.3rd, 1968, 216 So. 2d 25.
Appellant also contends that there was a fatal variance between the allegation and the proof as to ownership of the stolen property. The information alleged that the property received or concealed was that of “Bennett Gibson and Mark Gibson, doing-business as Lealman Texaco,” while the proof showed that it was the property of Bennett Gibson. During the trial appellant made no objection to the variance, nor did he raise it in his motion for directed verdict. See Finley v. State, 1943, 153 Fla. 394, 14 So. 2d 844.
The purpose of alleging ownership of the stolen property is to show ownership to be in one other than the accused, and as a part of the description of the property. Byrd v. State, 1941, 146 Fla. 686, 1 So. 2d 624; Hearn v. State, Fla.1951, 55 So. 2d 559; Gaynor v. State, Fla.App.4th, 1967, 196 So. 2d 19; Cross v. State, Fla.App.2d, 1970, 237 So. 2d 324. It was alleged and established that the property was not that of the accused. Gaynor v. State, supra; Hunt v. State, Fla.App.3rd, 1967, 200 So. 2d 212; Ross v. State, Fla.App.3rd, 1969, 226 So. 2d 464. Appellant could not again be tried for receiving or concealing the same property taken at the same time from the same place, and under the same circumstances. Addison v. State, 1928, 95 Fla. 737, 116 So. 629; Hearn v. State, supra; Gagne v. State, Fla.App.2d, 1962, 138 So. 2d 90; Wilcox v. State, Fla.App.3rd, 1966, 183 So. 2d 555; Cross v. State, supra. We do not think that appellant was misled or embarrassed in the preparation of his defense by reason of such proof. Addison v. State, supra; Finley v. State, supra; Gagne v. State, supra; Hunt v. State, supra.
The judgment appealed is, therefore,
Affirmed.
McNULTY and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LEO v. State, 345 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…Duncan v. State, 29 Fla. 439, 10 So. 815 (1892); McClendon v. State, 117 So. 2d 506 (Fla.1st DCA 1960). Having in mind that "allegation and proof of ownership in such a case as this is principally to negate the accused’s ownership, Cannon v. State, 289 So. 2d 445 (Fla.2d DCA 1974), and that in burglary prosecutions “ownership is any possession which is rightful as against those alleged to be burglars,” Dorsey v. State, 324 So. 2d 159, 160 (Fla.1st DCA 1975), we hold that Food Haul, Inc.’s ownership or right…
Authorities Cited (17 total)
- Hearn v. State, 55 So.2d 559 (Fla. 1951)
- Exch. Nat'l Bank of Tampa v. Flynn-Harris-Bullard Co., 95 Fla. 737 (Fla. 1928)
- State v. Graham, 238 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1970)
- Coleen Anita Ketelsen v. State, 211 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Finley v. State, 153 Fla. 394 (Fla. 1943)
- Adams v. State, 60 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1910)
- Byrd v. State, 146 Fla. 686 (Fla. 1941)
- Confederation Life Ass'n v. Porfirio Pendas Garra, 138 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Hunt v. State, 200 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Metcalf v. State, 98 Fla. 457 (Fla. 1929)