E. C. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

E. C. v. State

280 So. 2d 492, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 7853

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 17, 1973

DocketNo. 73-63

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 280 So. 2d 492 (E. C. 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

E. C. v. State, 280 So. 2d 492, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 7853 (Fla. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On appeal from an adjudication of delinquency for unlawfully receiving, buying or concealing stolen property [Fla.Stat., § 811.16, F.S.A.], we considered carefully the record and briefs of counsel and are of the belief that there does not appear of record competent substantial evidence to support the finding of the trial judge. We are in agreement with appellant’s able counsel that the proof went to the theft of the tape recorder in question rather than the “receiving, buying or concealing stolen property”. We therefore must reverse the order adjudicating appellant a delinquent as this court has held in Ketelsen v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 853 and Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1968, 216 So.2d 25 that “one who steals property or is a principal to the theft can not be convicted of receiving, buying, concealing, or aiding in concealing, or aiding in concealing the property stolen”.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

On appeal from an adjudication of delinquency for unlawfully receiving, buying or concealing stolen property [Fla.Stat., § 811.16, F.S.A.], we considered carefully the record and briefs of counsel and are of the belief that there does not appear of record competent substantial evidence to support the finding of the trial judge. We are in agreement with appellant’s able counsel that the proof went to the theft of the tape recorder in question rather than the “receiving, buying or concealing stolen property”. We therefore must reverse the order adjudicating appellant a delinquent as this court has held in Ketelsen v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 853 and Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1968, 216 So.2d 25 that “one who steals property or is a principal to the theft can not be convicted of receiving, buying, concealing, or aiding in concealing, or aiding in concealing the property stolen”.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 So. 2d 492, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 7853, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/e-c-v-state-fladistctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack