Foster v. State
Decision Date | 05 December 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 43931,43931 |
Citation | 286 So.2d 549 |
Parties | Willie Clyde FOSTER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and David J. Busch, Asst. Public Defender, for petitioner.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, reported at 276 So.2d 512. Our jurisdiction is based on conflict between the decision sought to be reviewed and Yost v. State 1 and Cone and Sanders v. State. 2
The facts of the case are as follows:
Petitioner, defendant below, was charged, by information, with breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, and with possession of burglary tools. Following a hearing on petitioner's motion to suppress the evidence, the trial court granted the motion as it related to certain wire cutters, but denied it as to a certain screwdriver. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict, finding petitioner guilty of both counts as charged, and subsequently, petitioner was adjudged guilty and sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment on the first count, and five years imprisonment on the second count, the sentences to run concurrently.
In its opinion, the District Court of Appeal, First District, held as follows:
3
The First District then proceeded to 'distinguish' these two prior cases from the instant case. It would appear, however, that distinctions made by the court are highly questionable, at best. The First District noted:
4
What the court has done in this case, however, is to look at the Yost case and the Cone and Sanders case in one perspective, and to look at the instant case in an entirely different perspective.
Reversing the perspective of the three cases, and looking first at Yost, it certainly can be said that one can be convicted of possession of marijuana without being convicted of the sale of marijuana. Applying the same reverse perspective to Cone and Sanders, it certainly can be said that one can be convicted of displaying or using a firearm during the commission of a felony without being convicted of armed robbery. Finally, reversing our perspective, and looking at the instant case (and noting the facts of the instant case, i.e., that the 'burglary tool' which petitioner was convicted of possessing was, in fact, a simple screwdriver), it can hardly be said that the petitioner could have been convicted of possession of burglary tools, in this case Only a screwdriver, had he not been participating in a breaking and entering. Dissenting Judge Johnson in the instant case made just such an observation:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
D.P. v. State, 96-3289
...application to entirely innocent activities ... so as to create prohibitions that completely lack any rational basis"); Foster v. State, 286 So.2d 549, 551 (Fla.1973) (prohibiting punishment of possession of a simple screwdriver as being a burglary tool, without any showing of criminal inte......
-
Thomas v. State
...... Second, it opens the door for the abusive or pretextual arrest of persons merely found to possess common household items. Previously we attempted to deal with these problems in Foster v. State, 286 So.2d 549 (Fla.1973), receded from on other grounds, Jenkins v. Wainwright, 322 So.2d 477 (Fla.1975), by drawing a distinction between common household items and devices that are per se burglary tools. This conclusion subsequently was embodied in the standard jury instruction. See ......
-
Borges v. State
...Ray, 331 So.2d 316 (Fla.1976); Jenkins v. Wainwright, 322 So.2d 477 (Fla.1975); Estevez v. State, 313 So.2d 692 (Fla.1975); Foster v. State, 286 So.2d 549 (Fla.1973); Cone v. State, 285 So.2d 12 (Fla.1973); Williams v. State, 337 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), aff'd, 346 So.2d 67 (Fla.1977......
-
Jenkins v. Wainwright
...In addition, we note that previous decisions of this Court have been cited as adopting the single transaction rule. E.g., Foster v. State, 286 So.2d 549 (Fla.1973); Cone v. State, 285 So.2d 12 (Fla.1973); Williams v. State, 69 So.2d 766 (Fla.1954). It is the respondent's position that the t......
-
Proxy crimes
...broadly defined possession of burglary tools without any need to prove ulterior intent unconstitutional. See, e.g. , Foster v. State, 286 So. 2d 549, 551 (Fla. 1973) (stating that the Florida statute criminalizing the possession of burglary tools cannot be construed to cover the possession......