Lockett v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lockett v. State

188 So. 2d 12, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5042

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 7, 1966

DocketNo. 65-844

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 188 So. 2d 12 (Lockett 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

Lockett v. State, 188 So. 2d 12, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5042 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was informed against, charged with buying, receiving or aiding in the concealment of 27 stolen radiators, the property of “Peacock’s Radiator Service, Inc., a corporation.” He was tried and found guilty.

On this appeal by him from the judgment of conviction appellant contends the state failed to prove ownership as alleged, and that the evidence was insufficient to establish identity of the property found in appellant’s possession as the alleged stolen property. We find those contentions to be without merit, and affirm.

The proofs disclosed ownership in Peacock’s Radiator Service, and no evidence was presented directly as to whether the concern was lawfully incorporated. We hold, however, that ownership, to the extent and for the purpose required (Duncan v. State, 29 Fla. 439, 10 So. 815), was sufficiently established. It was so held in McClendon v. State, Fla.App.1960, 117 So.2d 506, which was similar on the facts relating to that point. On examination of the record we conclude also that the evidence adequately supports the finding in the trial court as to identity of the property found in the appellant’s possession with the alleged stolen property.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was informed against, charged with buying, receiving or aiding in the concealment of 27 stolen radiators, the property of “Peacock’s Radiator Service, Inc., a corporation.” He was tried and found guilty.

On this appeal by him from the judgment of conviction appellant contends the state failed to prove ownership as alleged, and that the evidence was insufficient to establish identity of the property found in appellant’s possession as the alleged stolen property. We find those contentions to be without merit, and affirm.

The proofs disclosed ownership in Peacock’s Radiator Service, and no evidence was presented directly as to whether the concern was lawfully incorporated. We hold, however, that ownership, to the extent and for the purpose required (Duncan v. State, 29 Fla. 439, 10 So. 815), was sufficiently established. It was so held in McClendon v. State, Fla.App.1960, 117 So.2d 506, which was similar on the facts relating to that point. On examination of the record we conclude also that the evidence adequately supports the finding in the trial court as to identity of the property found in the appellant’s possession with the alleged stolen property.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 So. 2d 12, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lockett-v-state-fladistctapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack