Mallah v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mallah v. State

121 So. 2d 667, 1960 Fla. App. LEXIS 2261

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 16, 1960

DocketNo. 59-588

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 121 So. 2d 667 (Mallah 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

Mallah v. State, 121 So. 2d 667, 1960 Fla. App. LEXIS 2261 (Fla. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Benjamin Mallah and Salvatore Albert Pánico appeal from judgments and sentences pursuant to a verdict of guilty upon a trial for the crime of unlawfully and feloniously entering without breaking a dwelling house with intent to commit a misdemeanor, to wit: petit larceny. They present two points in their argument: The first urges that certain evidence was improperly admitted because it was obtained by an illegal search. The second urges that the state failed to prove any cash value for the goods allegedly stolen.

Upon the first point it affirmatively appears from the record that the evidence to which objection was made was obtained by search of an automobile in which appellants were riding at the time of their arrest. The search was incident to a lawful arrest. Pflegl v. State, Fla.1957, 93 So.2d 75.

The second point is equally without merit, since proof of the cash value of the articles stolen is not required to sustain a conviction for unlawfully and feloniously entering without breaking a dwelling house with intent to commit a misdemeanor, to wit: petit larceny. Jalbert v. State, Fla.1957, 95 So.2d 589; Channell v. State, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 284, 287.

Affirmed.

HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Benjamin Mallah and Salvatore Albert Pánico appeal from judgments and sentences pursuant to a verdict of guilty upon a trial for the crime of unlawfully and feloniously entering without breaking a dwelling house with intent to commit a misdemeanor, to wit: petit larceny. They present two points in their argument: The first urges that certain evidence was improperly admitted because it was obtained by an illegal search. The second urges that the state failed to prove any cash value for the goods allegedly stolen.

Upon the first point it affirmatively appears from the record that the evidence to which objection was made was obtained by search of an automobile in which appellants were riding at the time of their arrest. The search was incident to a lawful arrest. Pflegl v. State, Fla.1957, 93 So.2d 75.

The second point is equally without merit, since proof of the cash value of the articles stolen is not required to sustain a conviction for unlawfully and feloniously entering without breaking a dwelling house with intent to commit a misdemeanor, to wit: petit larceny. Jalbert v. State, Fla.1957, 95 So.2d 589; Channell v. State, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 284, 287.

Affirmed.

HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 So. 2d 667, 1960 Fla. App. LEXIS 2261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mallah-v-state-fladistctapp-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack