ELDRIDGE JEROME SMITH, 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.
Smith was convicted of burglary, grand theft, and dealing in stolen property stemming from a convenience store break-in. The appellate court affirmed the first two convictions but reversed the dealing conviction due to insufficient independent evidence of the offense, and remanded for resentencing because the trial court imposed sentences exceeding the statutory maximum.
The dealing in stolen property conviction is vacated because the state failed to prove the corpus delicti independent of Smith's confession. The sentences for burglary and grand theft must be vacated as they exceeded the five-year maximum penalty for third-degree felonies, and the case is remanded for resentencing on a recalculated scoresheet.
[1] Possession of recently stolen property, without more, is insufficient to prove guilty knowledge for the crime of receiving stolen property.
[2] A prima facie case for receiving stolen property is established when the state shows possession of recently stolen goods, which are being sold at less than their value, i…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Before a defendant's confession is admissible the state must prove with substantial evidence the corpus delicti of the offense charged.”
Establishes the constitutional requirement that confession alone cannot support conviction without independent evidence of the crime's commission
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn September 10, 1986, Smith and associates burglarized a convenience store, taking thirty-five cartons of cigarettes, seventy-four packages of lunch …
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 Dealing In Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Judge.
The appellant challenges his convictions and sentences for burglary, grand theft, and dealing in stolen property arising from the breaking and entering of a convenience store. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The evidence at trial established that the appellant and several of his friends carried out the burglary on September 10, 1986. They took thirty-five cartons of cigarettes, seventy-four packages of lunch meat, and three cases of beer. Acting on a tip, the police arrested Freddy Lee Maxwell and found a portion of the contraband in Maxwell’s house. This arrest resulted in the detention and interrogation of the appellant. After he received Miranda warnings, the appellant admitted to the burglary, implicated the others, and said that they had taken the stolen property to Plant City where they got rid of everything except some cigarettes. Aside from that singular statement by the appellant, no evidence showed how, when, or under what circumstances they disposed of the property. The appellant moved for a judgment of acquittal on the dealing charge, which the court denied.
The appellant was convicted, and the guidelines called for a sentence of five and one-half years to seven years. The trial court imposed a sentence of five and one-half years as to each charge notwithstanding that the burglary and grand theft charges are felonies of the third degree with a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment. These sentences must, therefore, be vacated. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(10).
As to the dealing in stolen property charge, the lower court erred in denying the appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal. Before a defendant’s confession is admissible the state must prove with substantial evidence the corpus delicti of the offense charged. State v. Allen, 335 So. 2d 823 (Fla.1976).
The elements of dealing in stolen property in violation of section 812.-019, Florida Statutes (1985), are that a person traffics or endeavors to traffic in property that he knows or should know is stolen. The state introduced no independent evidence relative to the disposition of the stolen property and the appellant’s statements in this regard, even if admissible, leave considerable doubt as to what happened to the property. The conviction of dealing in stolen property is, therefore, vacated and the appellant is discharged as to that offense. The dealing charge, a second degree felony, was scored as the primary offense on the appellant’s sentencing guidelines score-sheet.
Thus, we remand the burglary and grand theft charges for resentencing based on a recalculated scoresheet.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baxter v. State, 586 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…ishing a greater or second offense. See Johnson v. State, 569 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 581 So. 2d 167 (Fla.1990) (confession alone cannot increase possession of cocaine to possession with the intent to sell); see also Smith v. State, 566 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (although burglary had been proven, confession alone cannot support additional crime of dealing in stolen property). Thus, we hold that in order to establish the corpus delicti of conspiracy, the state must present substantial evi…
-
C.W. v. State, 778 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…harge arose from C.W.’s confession that he took the ice cream bar from the freezer and ate it. “Before a defendant’s confession is admissible the state must prove with substantial evidence the corpus delicti of the offense charged.” Smith v. State, 566 So. 2d 590, 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (affirming convictions for burglary and grand theft, but vacating conviction for dealing in stolen property). The State may prove the corpus delicti with direct or circumstantial evidence, and it is sufficient if the evidence…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Allen, 335 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1976)