Leon v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Leon v. State

186 So. 2d 93, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5339

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 10, 1966

DocketNo. 65-527

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 186 So. 2d 93 (Leon 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

Leon v. State, 186 So. 2d 93, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5339 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was found guilty, in the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County, of breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit a misdemeanor and of petty larceny. On this appeal he contends that the evidence was insufficient because the State failed to establish criminal intent. It is urged that it reasonably appeared from the evidence that the appellant was so intoxicated, at the time of the breaking, and the taking, that he was incapable of entertaining the specific criminal intent required. See Britts v. State, 158 Fla. 839, 30 So.2d 363 (1947). But cf. Young v. State, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 297.

The appellant left his home when his mother refused him money to buy more liquor. He went into a dwelling in another neighborhood and came out with several small appliances which were particularly adapted to conversion into cash. He fled upon being approached by a policeman and was apprehended at a considerable distance from the dwelling he had entered.

The record impels a conclusion that the appellant was voluntarily under the influence of alcohol at the time of the breaking and the taking, but voluntary intoxication does not of itself prove absence of intent. Hall v. State, 78 Fla. 420, 83 So. 513, 8 A.L.R. 1034 (1919). See generally, 9 Fla.Jur., Criminal Law § 184.

Upon reviewing the record, we find that there was substantial evidence upon which the trial court, as the trier of facts, could have found that the element of intent had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. See Johnson v. State, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 180; Eizenman v. State, Fla.App. 1961, 132 So.2d 763.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was found guilty, in the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County, of breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit a misdemeanor and of petty larceny. On this appeal he contends that the evidence was insufficient because the State failed to establish criminal intent. It is urged that it reasonably appeared from the evidence that the appellant was so intoxicated, at the time of the breaking, and the taking, that he was incapable of entertaining the specific criminal intent required. See Britts v. State, 158 Fla. 839, 30 So.2d 363 (1947). But cf. Young v. State, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 297.

The appellant left his home when his mother refused him money to buy more liquor. He went into a dwelling in another neighborhood and came out with several small appliances which were particularly adapted to conversion into cash. He fled upon being approached by a policeman and was apprehended at a considerable distance from the dwelling he had entered.

The record impels a conclusion that the appellant was voluntarily under the influence of alcohol at the time of the breaking and the taking, but voluntary intoxication does not of itself prove absence of intent. Hall v. State, 78 Fla. 420, 83 So. 513, 8 A.L.R. 1034 (1919). See generally, 9 Fla.Jur., Criminal Law § 184.

Upon reviewing the record, we find that there was substantial evidence upon which the trial court, as the trier of facts, could have found that the element of intent had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. See Johnson v. State, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 180; Eizenman v. State, Fla.App. 1961, 132 So.2d 763.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 So. 2d 93, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leon-v-state-fladistctapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack