Ponce v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ponce v. State

219 So. 2d 60, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 6130

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 25, 1969

DocketNo. 68-367

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 219 So. 2d 60 (Ponce 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

Ponce v. State, 219 So. 2d 60, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 6130 (Fla. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was found guilty after a non-jury trial of breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit grand larceny. The only substantial question raised on this appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to establish that the appellant, who was the driver of the car used in the crime, knew that the crime was being committed. He relies upon Williams v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 206 So.2d 446, for reversal.

The record reveals that the appellant drove the active participants to the residence to be entered and there continued to circle the area seven or eight times while the crime was in progress. He was taken into custody when he stopped at the scene of the crime. These facts distinguish appellant’s position from that of the driver in Williams v. State, supra, where the court found that there was a reasonable hypothe[61]*61sis consistent with Williams’s innocence. Appellant’s actions here clearly indicate that he knew a crime was in progress and was there to aid in its perpetration. Cf. Luke v. State, Fla.App.1967, 204 So.2d 359.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was found guilty after a non-jury trial of breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit grand larceny. The only substantial question raised on this appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to establish that the appellant, who was the driver of the car used in the crime, knew that the crime was being committed. He relies upon Williams v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 206 So.2d 446, for reversal.

The record reveals that the appellant drove the active participants to the residence to be entered and there continued to circle the area seven or eight times while the crime was in progress. He was taken into custody when he stopped at the scene of the crime. These facts distinguish appellant’s position from that of the driver in Williams v. State, supra, where the court found that there was a reasonable hypothe[61]*61sis consistent with Williams’s innocence. Appellant’s actions here clearly indicate that he knew a crime was in progress and was there to aid in its perpetration. Cf. Luke v. State, Fla.App.1967, 204 So.2d 359.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 So. 2d 60, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 6130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ponce-v-state-fladistctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack