High v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

High v. State

260 So. 2d 549, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6994

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 12, 1972

DocketNo. 71-477

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 260 So. 2d 549 (High 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

High v. State, 260 So. 2d 549, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6994 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

MANN, Judge.

This case differs from Jackson v. State, Fla.App.2d 1972, 259 So.2d 739 (opinion filed’ March 15, 1972) only in that the telephone booth which the appellant was accused of entering without breaking was outside of any other building. As in Jackson there is no showing of non-consent of the owner. It was a phone booth clearly accessible to the public. Of course, High may be guilty of taking money from a coin-operated vending machine pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 877.08, F.S.A. or an attempt to do so, but this record does not disclose a violation of Fla.Stat. § 810.05, F.S.A. For the reasons stated by Chief Judge Pierce in Jackson and Judge McNulty in his special concurrence, the judgment appealed from is reversed.

PIERCE, C. J., and LILES, J., concur.

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

MANN, Judge.

This case differs from Jackson v. State, Fla.App.2d 1972, 259 So.2d 739 (opinion filed’ March 15, 1972) only in that the telephone booth which the appellant was accused of entering without breaking was outside of any other building. As in Jackson there is no showing of non-consent of the owner. It was a phone booth clearly accessible to the public. Of course, High may be guilty of taking money from a coin-operated vending machine pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 877.08, F.S.A. or an attempt to do so, but this record does not disclose a violation of Fla.Stat. § 810.05, F.S.A. For the reasons stated by Chief Judge Pierce in Jackson and Judge McNulty in his special concurrence, the judgment appealed from is reversed.

PIERCE, C. J., and LILES, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 So. 2d 549, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6994, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/high-v-state-fladistctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack