Cooper v. State
| Decision Date | 23 January 1922 |
| Citation | 83 Fla. 34,90 So. 693 |
| Parties | COOPER v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, La Fayette County; M. F. Horne, Judge.
Peyton Cooper was convicted of burglary, and he brings error. Reversed, with directions to amend the commitment in so far as to make it speak the truth as to the offense charged.
Syllabus by the Court
Where commitment erroneously stated charge, cause will be reversed with directions to amend. Where one is convicted upon an indictment charging him with breaking and entering the dwelling house of another with intent to commit a felony, to wit, the larceny of property of more than the value of $20 and the court finds that the defendant is a suitable person to be committed, under the statute, to the Florida Industrial School for Boys, and in the order committing the defendant recites that he was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor, the error in describing the offense in such order does not invalidate the judgment and sentence, but the judgment will be reversed, with directions to amend the commitment in so far as to make it speak the truth as to the nature of the offense charged.
Pushing open an entirely closed door is a sufficient breaking. Pushing open a door entirely closed is a sufficient breaking to sustain a conviction for breaking and entering a dwelling house.
Possession of stolen goods 14 days after theft is sufficient to warrant inference of guilt. Possession of stolen articles so recently as 14 days after the theft is sufficient evidence upon which to warrant the jury in inferring guilt on the part of the person in possession, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such possession of the stolen goods by him.
Evidence held to support conviction. Evidence examined, and found sufficient to support the verdict.
W. P. Chavous, of Mayo, for plaintiff in error.
Rivers Buford, Atty. Gen., and J. B. Gaines, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error was convicted in the circuit court for La Fayette county upon an indictment charging him with breaking and entering the dwelling house of another with intent to commit a felony, the larceny of property of more than the value of $20. The court, finding that the defendant was a suitable person to be committed to the Florida Industrial School for Boys, committed him to that institution for 4 years. In the order it was recited that the alternative sentence was 3 years in the state prison at hard labor; that the defendant was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. The error in describing the character of offense charged as being a breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor instead of a felony does not invalidate the judgment and sentence.
The punishment prescribed for the offense of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor is a period of imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding 5 years. The offense charged in the indictment was more serious. Sentence to a term in the Industrial School in either case where the defendant is under the age of 18 years is authorized under section 6318, Revised General Statutes 1920. The form of the commitment in this case followed the form prescribed by section 6320, Revised General Statutes.
T. A Townsend was a witness for the state. He testified that the house entered was his dwelling house; that the house was entered during his absence; some clothing consisting of shoes, trousers, shirt, tie, and other articles, amounting in value to about $45, were stolen; a few days after the theft he met the defendant, who was wearing some of the articles, shoes, socks, and sock supporters. The defendant, when confronted by the witness and asked where he got the shoes and socks, admitted that some of the other articles, the trousers, shirt, tie, etc., were in his trunk at home, and he told two stories as to how he acquired them. In one story he said that he bought them from a Jew at Branford; a little while later he said that he was plowing in a field and saw a boy crossing the field at a corner, and who stopped near a stump; later the defendant went there to investigate, found the clothes,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hamilton
...and entering or for burglary.' (Winchester v. Becker, 4 Cal.App. 382, 384, 88 P. 296; 13 Am.Jur.2d § 15, p. 330; Cooper v. State, 83 Fla. 34, 90 So. 693, 23 A.L.R. 109; Kent v. State, 84 Ga. 438, 11 S.E. 355; Commonwealth v. Mackey, 171 Ky. 473, 188 S.W. 676; State v. Henderson, 212 Mo. 208......
-
Holloman v. State
... ... 51, 41 So. 785, 10 Ann.Cas. 1003; ... Jones v. State, 64 Fla. 92, 59 So. 892, L.R.A.1915B, ... 71; Hunter v. State, 64 Fla. 315, 60 So. 786; ... Taylor v. State, 67 Fla. 127, 64 So. 454; Smith ... v. State, 71 Fla. 639, 71 So. 915; Poyner v ... State, 81 Fla. 726, 88 So. 762; Cooper v ... State, 83 Fla. 34, 90 So. 693, 23 A.L.R. 109; Brooke ... v. State, 99 Fla. 1275, 128 So. 814, 69 A.L.R. 1173; ... Ellis v. State, 100 Fla. 27, 129 So. 106, 69 A.L.R ... 783; State ex rel. House v. Mayo, 122 Fla. 23, 164 ... For the ... above reasons the judgment is reversed ... ...
-
Carlton v. State
... ... infer as a fact the guilt of the defendant from ... defendant's unexplained possession of goods recently ... stolen. Bargesser v. State, 95 Fla. 401, 116 So. 11; ... Kirkland v. State, 82 Fla. 118, 89 So. 356; ... Capello v. State, 82 Fla. 313, 90 So. 191; ... Cooper v. State, 83 Fla. 34, 90 So. 693, 23 A. L. R ... 109; Grooms v. State, 83 Fla. 547, 92 So. 153; ... Tucker v. State, 86 Fla. 36, 96 So. 10 ... Under ... the foregoing rule, the charge given by the court was harmful ... error, for which a new trial should have been granted under ... ...
-
Kirtsinger v. State
...of the offense even if the defendant merely opened or pushed open the door. See May v. State, 40 Fla. 426, 24 So. 498; Cooper v. State, 83 Fla. 34, 90 So. 693, 23 L. R. 109. The value of the property taken was sufficiently established, as well as the fact that it was taken by the defendant.......