Kirkland v. State, U--126
| Decision Date | 20 August 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. U--126,U--126 |
| Citation | 299 So.2d 54 |
| Parties | Charles Edward KIRKLAND and James Robert Luke, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, for appellants.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Donald K. Rudser, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Julian F. Broome, Jr., Jacksonville, for appellee.
Appellants seek reversal of their convictions and sentences after being found guilty by a jury of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, to wit grand larceny, petit larceny and possession of burglary tools. Appellants were each sentenced to fifteen years for the breaking and entering conviction, 60 days in the county jail for the petit larceny, and five years for the possession of burglary tools, the latter to run consecutive to the former concurrent sentences.
We see no useful purpose in setting forth herein the details of the criminal acts charged to appellants. It is enough to point out that a building containing offices and retail establishments was broken into and burglarized. Appellants, along with a third person, were found inside the building moments after a silent alarm system went off, as were various tools.
As bases for this appeal, appellants contend that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny; that the trial court erred in disallowing the testimony of an alleged material witness; and that the trial court erred in imposing three separate sentences for the three offenses inasmuch as the petit larceny and possession of burglary tools were but facets or phases of the breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny.
We have heard oral argument in this cause and have carefully examined the record on appeal and the briefs submitted by the parties. Upon our consideration thereof, we are convinced that the evidence was totally sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, to wit: grand larceny. There was adequate testimony to illustrate that the value of the contents inside the building and the safes therein which were broken into was well over $100.00 and that the contents of said safes were missing. While appellants offered an explanation concerning their presence in the building when apprehended, the issue of guilt was one which could be decided only by the trial jury. Whether the proof was inconsistent with a reasonable, credible hypothesis of innocence was a matter solely for the jury. Once this issue has been resolved against the appellants by the rendition of the guilty verdicts, the sole authority of this appellate court is to review the record to determine whether it contains sufficient competent evidence which, if believed, would support the verdict. This we have done and finding that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estevez v. State
...can only be sentenced for the highest offense which is breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony.' See also: Kirkland, et al. v. State, 299 So.2d 54 (Fla.App. 1, 1974). We adhere to our previous position as announced in Steele, supra, and Brown, supra , and find that breaking and......
-
Borges v. State
...transaction for which only one sentence could be imposed. However, the principal case relied on for that conclusion, Kirkland v. State, 299 So.2d 54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), was reversed by the Supreme Court in State v. Kirkland, 322 So.2d 480 (Fla.1975); also see Jenkins v. Wainwright, 322 So.......
-
State v. Kirkland
...This is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to the First District Court of Appeal to review its decision reported at 299 So.2d 54 (Fla.App.1st 1974). Conflict exists with our decisions in Steele v. Mayo, 72 So.2d 386 (Fla.1954); Estevez v. State, 313 So.2d 692 (Fla.1975); and Jenki......
-
Bruton v. State, 74--1503
...may be imposed and that sentence should be imposed for the higher offense. Foster v. State, 286 So.2d 549 (Fla.1973); Kirkland v. State, 299 So.2d 54 (Fla.App.1974); Wyche v. State, 178 So.2d 875 Accordingly, the sentence on Count I of the information is vacated and set aside. The judgment ......