State v. Cowhig

Supreme Court of Florida

State v. Cowhig

604 So. 2d 1233, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 601, 1992 Fla. LEXIS 1626, 1992 WL 236201

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedSeptember 24, 1992

DocketNo. 79013

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 604 So. 2d 1233 (State v. Cowhig) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Cowhig, 604 So. 2d 1233, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 601, 1992 Fla. LEXIS 1626, 1992 WL 236201 (Fla. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We review Cowhig v. State, 589 So.2d 310 (Fla. 5th DCA1991), based on conflict with Dixon v. State, 541 So.2d 637 (Fla. 1st DCA), review dismissed, 547 So.2d 1209 (Fla.1989), and our review of State v. Camp, 579 So.2d 763 (Fla. 5th DCA1991), approved, 596 So.2d 1055 (Fla.1992). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981).

William Lawrence Cowhig, Jr., stole numerous checks from an office and cashed one of them for his own use. He was tried and convicted of burglary of a structure and dealing in stolen property under section 812.019, Florida Statutes (1989) (dealing in stolen property). The Fifth District reversed Cowhig’s conviction for dealing in stolen property, based on its decision in Camp, which recently was approved by this Court. State v. Camp, 596 So.2d 1055, 1057 (Fla.1992) (negotiating stolen checks for personal use, or otherwise deriving personal benefit from stolen merchandise, does not constitute the crime of dealing in stolen property).

The decision below therefore is approved. It is so ordered.

BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, shaw, grimes, kogan and HARDING, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We review Cowhig v. State, 589 So.2d 310 (Fla. 5th DCA1991), based on conflict with Dixon v. State, 541 So.2d 637 (Fla. 1st DCA), review dismissed, 547 So.2d 1209 (Fla.1989), and our review of State v. Camp, 579 So.2d 763 (Fla. 5th DCA1991), approved, 596 So.2d 1055 (Fla.1992). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981).

William Lawrence Cowhig, Jr., stole numerous checks from an office and cashed one of them for his own use. He was tried and convicted of burglary of a structure and dealing in stolen property under section 812.019, Florida Statutes (1989) (dealing in stolen property). The Fifth District reversed Cowhig’s conviction for dealing in stolen property, based on its decision in Camp, which recently was approved by this Court. State v. Camp, 596 So.2d 1055, 1057 (Fla.1992) (negotiating stolen checks for personal use, or otherwise deriving personal benefit from stolen merchandise, does not constitute the crime of dealing in stolen property).

The decision below therefore is approved. It is so ordered.

BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, shaw, grimes, kogan and HARDING, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

604 So. 2d 1233, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 601, 1992 Fla. LEXIS 1626, 1992 WL 236201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cowhig-fla-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack