Schwam v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Schwam v. State

222 So. 2d 790, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5866

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 20, 1969

DocketNo. 68-1118

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 222 So. 2d 790 (Schwam 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

Schwam v. State, 222 So. 2d 790, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5866 (Fla. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

SWANN, Judge.

The appellant, Schwam, appeals from his judgment and sentence for the crime of possession of burglary tools.

The question on appeal is whether there was sufficient competent evidence presented in the non-jury trial to prove that Schwam violated Fla.Stat. § 810.06, F.S.A.

In Estevez v. State, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 830, 831, it was stated:

“ * * * the principal elements of the crime are possession of a ‘burglarious tool’ with the intent to use, or allow the use of, the particular tool to commit a crime.”

Upon review of the testimony and evidence relating to possession and intent and in light of the evidence as to the surrounding facts and circumstances, we are of the view that there was substantial, competent evidence to support the guilty verdict and [791]*791the judgment and sentence. See Troise v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 24; Rinehart v. State, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 487; Estevez v. State, supra.

Affirmed.

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