TEX WILLIAMS, 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 breaking and entering with intent to commit petit larceny; testimony that the defendant broke into office premises used and occupied by the named party satisfied the ownership requirement.
Testimony that office premises were used and occupied by the party named in the information is sufficient to establish ownership for purposes of a breaking and entering charge.
[1] Testimony that premises were used and occupied by the party named in a breaking and entering information is sufficient to establish ownership without explicit proof of le…
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 intelligenceWilliams was charged with breaking and entering Suite 1114 at 200 Biscayne Boulevard with intent to commit grand larceny. He was tried without a jury …
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 Intent to Commit a Misdemeanor cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By information the appellant was charged with breaking and entering a building (Suite 1114 at 200 Biscayne Boulevard Way, “property of Hiram Walker, Incorporated, as owner, tenant or lessee”) with intent to commit a felony, to wit: grand larceny. He was tried without a jury, and was found and adjudged guilty of the lesser included offense of breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a misdemeanor, to-wit: petit larceny, for which he was sentenced to confinement in the county jail for 364 days, with recommendation that he be placed in a vocational training program.
Appealing therefrom the defendant argues the trial court erred by denying his motion for acquittal made at the close of the evidence, on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction, contending the state failed to fur nish proof as required of the allegation as to ownership of the premises by the party named in the information.
Upon consideration thereof in the light of the record and briefs we hold the trial court did not commit error in denying the motion for acquittal. See Leslie v. State, 35 Fla. 171, 17 So. 555, 558; Dees v. State, 99 Fla. 1144, 128 So. 485; Sifford v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 202 So. 2d 14. Here there was testimony of three witnesses presented by the state from which the trier of the facts could, and no doubt did find that the office premises which were broken into were used and occupied by the party alleged. That was sufficient. Sifford v. State, supra.
No reversible error having been shown, the judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mitchell v. State, 317 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…evidence was not legally sufficient to prove ownership or that there was no evidence from which a jury could have resolved the issue of ownership adversely to defendant. 32 Fla.Jur., Trial, sections 92-100. See also Williams v. State, Fla.App.1975, 309 So. 2d 630; Clark v. State, Fla.App.1974, 293 So. 2d 768. Measured by the standards set forth in Hunt v. State, supra, the defendant’s motions for judgment of acquittal based upon insufficient evidence to support the allegation of ownership were properly deni…
-
G. E. v. State, 393 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. In the Interest of M. E., 370 So. 2d 795 (Fla.1979); Williams v. State, 309 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).…
Authorities Cited
- Leslie v. State, 35 Fla. 171 (Fla. 1895)
- Dees v. State, 99 Fla. 1144 (Fla. 1930)
- Guyton v. State, 202 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Sifford v. State, 202 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)