CLEMENTEEN SINGLETON, 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.
Affirmed conviction for grand larceny where evidence sufficiently established appellant was either the perpetrator or a cooperating principal, despite uncertainty about which of two women entered the hotel room.
Evidence is sufficient to support a grand larceny conviction when it establishes the defendant was either the actor or a cooperating principal, even if the specific identity of who entered the victim's room cannot be determined with certainty.
[1] A defendant may be convicted as a principal in a larceny even when evidence does not establish whether she was the actual perpetrator or an aiding and abetting accomplice…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe victim awoke to find a figure in white at his dresser where his wallet lay. He pursued the figure into the hall, found two women, and when accused…
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 Principal Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
The single point presented on this appeal from appellant’s conviction for the crime of grand larceny is her contention that the evidence was insufficient. The testimony presented by the state established that the victim awoke to see a figure clad in white standing at his dresser in his hotel room. He had left his wallet on his dresser. The victim pursued the figure and discovered her in the hall with another woman. When the victim accused them of the crime one of them told the other to return the wallet which was done. The statement was, “You can have your wallet, we don’t want any trouble. Let us go.” When the victim refused to let them go they fled and were later apprehended by the police near the hotel parking lot.
The appeal of the co-defendant was not prosecuted and was dismissed by this court. On this appeal by Clementeen Singleton who admitted that she was one of the women apprehended urges that since we do not know which one of the women was in the hotel room that this appellant must be acquitted. We find that the record contains sufficient evidence to support a finding by the trial judge that the present appellant was either the actor or was a cooperating principal in the larceny. Lake v. State, 100 Fla. 373, 129 So. 827 (1930); Henderson v. State, Fla.1954, 70 So.2d 358; Sons v. State, Fla.App.1958, 99 So.2d 888.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pellon v. State, 267 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed upon authority of the rule stated in Lake v. State, 100 Fla. 373, 129 So. 827, 131 So. 147 (1930); and Singleton v. State, Fla.App.1972, 256 So. 2d 398.…
Authorities Cited
- Forrest Lake v. State, 100 Fla. 373 (Fla. 1930)
- Sons v. State, 99 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Millard Keith v. State, 70 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 1954)