Bohonowsky v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bohonowsky v. State

336 So. 2d 478, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15345

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 30, 1976

DocketNos. 75-590, 75-591

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 336 So. 2d 478 (Bohonowsky v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bohonowsky v. State, 336 So. 2d 478, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15345 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse appellant’s conviction of conspiracy to commit a felony, to-wit: grand larceny, and remand with instructions to enter a conviction of the lesser charge, conspiracy to commit a misdemean- or, to-wit: petit larceny. Garland v. State, 291 So.2d 678 (4th DCA Fla.1974). The evidence presented at trial clearly proved that the value of the goods taken by appellants was less than $100. Generally, in such cases it has been said that the best evidence of a person’s intent to steal is what he did steal, White v. State, 274 So.2d 6 (4th DCA Fla.1973); Rumph v. State, 248 So.2d 526 (1st DCA Fla.1971). The evidence presented by the state does not exclude the reasonable hypothesis that appellants only intended to steal goods from the store with a value of less that $100.

The other points raised are without merit.

AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART and remanded.

WALDEN, CROSS and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We reverse appellant’s conviction of conspiracy to commit a felony, to-wit: grand larceny, and remand with instructions to enter a conviction of the lesser charge, conspiracy to commit a misdemean- or, to-wit: petit larceny. Garland v. State, 291 So.2d 678 (4th DCA Fla.1974). The evidence presented at trial clearly proved that the value of the goods taken by appellants was less than $100. Generally, in such cases it has been said that the best evidence of a person’s intent to steal is what he did steal, White v. State, 274 So.2d 6 (4th DCA Fla.1973); Rumph v. State, 248 So.2d 526 (1st DCA Fla.1971). The evidence presented by the state does not exclude the reasonable hypothesis that appellants only intended to steal goods from the store with a value of less that $100.

The other points raised are without merit.

AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART and remanded.

WALDEN, CROSS and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

336 So. 2d 478, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bohonowsky-v-state-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack