STEVEN RAY PICKLES A/K/A MICHAEL LEE SHARP, 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.
Steven Ray Pickles was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence established the value of stolen property exceeded $100 and that felonious intent was proven despite the prosecution's failure to adequately articulate its burden of proof.
The evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that the value of property stolen exceeded $100 and that felonious intent was established. Evidence of the extraneous offense (forgery of stolen checks) was admissible under the Williams rule to prove facts at issue in the burglary prosecution.
[1] Evidence of the value of a typewriter purchased on the day of a burglary is sufficient to establish that the value of stolen property exceeded $100.
[2] The possession of recently stolen property is admissible to prove the main offense of burglary.
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 hold that the evidence in this case established beyond any reasonable doubt that the value of the property stolen was in excess of $100 and that the felonious intent is established in spite of the prosecution's failure to acknowledge its burden of proof.”
The court's holding on the sufficiency of evidence regarding value and felonious intent for the grand larceny conviction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant broke into a premises and stole property including a typewriter valued at approximately $300 (delivered on the day of the burglary), a check…
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 Breaking And Entering With Intent To Commit Grand Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
MANN, Chief Judge.
There are two questions in this appeal, one of which we have recently answered in Platt v. State, Fla.App.2d 1974, 291 So. 2d 96, Opinion filed March 6, 1974. Here as in the Platt case, there was a question whether the proof of value of articles stolen is sufficient to support a conviction of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny. As in the Platt case there was no satisfactory recognition of the burden of the prosecution to prove the felonious intent of the defendant and, as in the Platt case, this conviction is rescued from reversal by sheer accident. The property stolen included a typewriter which cost approximately $300 and was delivered on the day of the burglary. In addition, a check writer and some checks were missing. We hold that the evidence in this case established beyond any reasonable doubt that the value of the property stolen was in excess of $100 and that the felonious intent is established in spite of the prosecution’s failure to acknowledge its burden of proof.
In due course some of the stolen checks were filled in payable to Michael L. Sharp, and cashed at a Publix supermarket, to which they were returned when the forgery was discovered. The objection was made that this was an impermissible use of evidence of other crimes. We. disagree. This is the sort of case the Williams rule1 contemplates. The possession of recently stolen property bearing on the original burglary which was charged in this case is admissible to prove the main offense. Only one fleeting mention of forgery was made, and that offense did not become a feature of the trial on this one. It is always helpful in these cases, of course, if the trial judge instructs the jury that the purpose of introducing evidence of another crime is to prove some fact at issue in the present trial. We think the procedure made mandatory for Louisiana courts in State v. Prieur, La.1973, 277 So. 2d 126, goes far to clarify many of the problems which come up in connection with Williams rule testimony. In this case, however, the evidence of the extraneous offense is necessarily involved in the proof of the one for which the defendant was tried. The record being without error, the judgment and sentence are
Affirmed.
HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur. . Williams v. State, Fla.1959, 110 So. 2d 654.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Snowden v. State, 537 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…knowledge and absence of mistake in the condition of defendant’s Florida nursing home—not feature where there was relatively small amount of such evidence, and manner in which it was presented prevented it from pervading the case); Pickles v. State, 291 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) (similar fact evidence not feature where only fleetingly mentioned). . In 1984, after reading in the newspaper about accusations of child sexual abuse levied against Grant Snowden, LB’s mother questioned her four-year-old daughte…
-
Pickles v. State, 313 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 1975)…BOYD, Justice. This cause is before us on petition for certiorari to review two decisions of the District Court of Appeal, Second District: 1. e., Platt and Humphries v. State, reported at 291 So. 2d 96, and Pickles v. State, reported at 291 So. 2d 100. Our jurisdiction 1 is based on alleged conflict between the decisions sought to be reviewed and Guerrero v. State.2 Since the petition for writ of certiorari reflected apparent jurisdiction of this Court, we issued the writ. We have examined the ar…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Platt v. State, 291 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)